Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

To he read a Second time To-morrow.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (MERSEY RAILWAY EXTENSIONS) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL

To be read a Second time To-morrow.

DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

FOREMEN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICATION OF RULES) ETC. BILL

To he read a Second time upon Thursday 8th February.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

HOLY TRINITY, WEST HAMPSTEAD BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LEICESTER CORPORATION BILL

LONDON TRANSPORT BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

MILL. LANE, KIRK ELLA, BURIAL GROUND BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

SAINT GEORGE, BOTOLPH LANE, CHURCHYARD BILL

SAINT MARY, HORNSEY BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SAINT SAVIOUR, PADDINGTON BILL

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

THAMES VALLEY WATER BILL

UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Nigeria

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to stop mercenaries being recruited in Great Britain for service in Nigeria.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): I am not aware of any recruitment of this sort.

Mr. Barnes: Can my hon. Friend say whether he has had information that certain premises in London have been used for recruiting purposes by people like Major Wicks and Colonel Peters? Would he not agree that the sort of mercenary build-up which appears to be taking place on both sides is the worst possible thing that can happen, because it can only prolong the conflict?

Mr. Thomas: While accepting the latter part of my hon. Friend's statement, I have no information on the earlier part of it. If he will supply me with information, I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Tailney: Will the hon. Gentleman consult with our Commonwealth friends and our allies in Europe to make it as difficult as possible to recruit mercenaries for this senseless civil war?

Mr. Thomas: The Government share the feeling, which is evident on both sides of the House, that the recruiting of mercenaries for this civil war is something to be deplored.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy regarding the supply of arms to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

Mr. George Thomas: Our policy on the supply of arms from this country to Nigeria was carefully reconsidered when the war in Nigeria broke out. It was decided that we would continue to authorise the export of reasonable quantities of arms and ammunition of broadly the same kind as supplied in the past to the Federal Government. This remains our policy. Supplies have all been on a normal commercial basis.

Mr. Barnes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the supply of arms to either side, by anyone, is another factor which can only serve to prolong this war, and is not the effect of present British policy to give the impression that Britain is more interested in seeing a Federal victory than the earliest possible cessation of hostilities?

Mr. Thomas: Our over-riding aim is to see the end of hostilities, because we, like everyone else in the House, have high hopes for Nigeria, but the traditional supply of arms to the Federal Government could not have been stopped without our being far from neutral, and, in fact, taking sides.

Mr. David Steel: Did not the Government's decision on the supply of arms to South Africa indicate that there are considerations other than commercial ones in the supply of arms? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the very deep concern of people returning from Eastern Nigeria, particularly Church of Scotland

Mission personnel, about the continued supply of arms, which is allowing what is in fact a war of genocide to go on in parts of Biafra?

Mr. Thomas: I am deeply conscious of the feeling among the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, and others. Yesterday, I met a deputation, including representatives of the Church of Scotland and of the World Council of Churches, on the question of the civil war in Nigeria. All our efforts are to bring this business to a speedy conclusion.

Dr. Gray: Would my hon. Friend say when it is traditional to supply arms to African countries when they are at civil war?

Mr. Thomas: My hon. Friend asks if it is right to supply arms to a country which is at civil war——

Dr. Gray: My hon. Friend said that it was traditional.

Mr. Thomas: There is not a tradition of civil war but when these circumstances arose I believe that Her Majesty's Government were right to continue their policy.

Mr. Tilney: Considering that the Commission of Information of Biafra continues to spread rumours that British troops are about to take part in the civil war, would the hon. Gentleman affirm that on no account will any British troops take part?

Mr. Thomas: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I gave the House a categorical denial of a recent rumour that 1,000 troops had left this country to fight in Nigeria. I now renew the assurance, and I hope that the Biafrans will accept what I say. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, no mercenaries have gone or, that we know, are going from these shores to participate in that struggle.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what further requests he has now received for assistance in reconciliation in Nigeria; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's endeavours to help end the conflict in Nigeria.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken or are taking in response to requests to use their good offices in effecting reconciliation in Nigeria.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): We have stated that we are prepared to help the Nigerians in any way we can which would bring peace nearer. We would regard it as a tragedy if their great country fell apart. But we respect their independence, and up till now there has been no request from the Nigerians themselves for our Kelp in settling their differences. We still t relieve that a settlement by negotiation I; possible, and I repeat our offer to do all we can to meet any request from Nigeria in the cause of peace.

Mr. Taylor: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is no sign of a settlement at present, and that the war is simply getting worse? Would he not take the initiative or consider asking a third party to do so?

Mr. Thomson: There are difficulties about a British initiative, certainly a British public initiative, because of our own very close association with Nigeria in the past, but we remain in the closest touch with all the people concerned about this, and a good deal happens behind the scenes which it would not be wise to talk about publicly.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his reply suggests passivity? Can we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are trying to mediate or to secure mediation through the Commonwealth or in some other way?

Mr. Thomson: My reply reveals, I hope, a suitable prudence and discretion publicly about what is said privately, but not passivity. I do not think that the exercise of the time and energies of my hon. Friend and myself at the Commonwealth office can be better employed than they are in trying to contribute towards peace in Nigeria.

Mr. Braine: While we would all accept that the right hon. Gentleman has been doing all he can behind the scenes, is there not a danger of our seeming to stand aloof? Would he not agree that

fear is the great corrupter in this situation, and that, since large numbers of Ibos have been massacred in the past, there is a desperate readiness to go on fighting to the bitter end? In this situation, is there not the strongest possible case for our coming out, precisely because we have a close connection with all the peoples of Nigeria, and offering mediation and arrangements, if necessary, for a Commonwealth peace-keeping force?

Mr. Thomson: The hon. Member is absolutely right about fear being an important element here. Some guarantee might be of great importance to the people of Iboland in connection with any settlement, and I have said before that if any idea of a Commonwealth peace force were put forward by the Government of Nigeria, it would certainly be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government.

Dr. David Kerr: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in the context of his replies to this Question, it is important to preserve a neutrality which is not best served by exporting arms to the Federal Government?

Mr. Thomson: That point has been very fully answered by my hon. Friend.

Sir G. Nabarro: In the meantime, how can the position possibly be helped by supplying arms to both sides? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that it is morally equitable that we should continue to supply arms to both sides in Nigeria for Africans to shoot one another, whereas he refuses to supply arms to South Africa for external defence?

Mr. Thomson: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on getting that in, but he is, with respect, asking a supplementary question which he sought to ask on the previous Question, when he was not called, and which has already been fully answered by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how much damage has been done to British property in Port Harcourt and elsewhere in Nigeria as a result of the disorders which have arisen from unfounded local fears that United Kingdom forces were about to intervene in the civil war on the side of the Federal Government.

Mr. George Thomas: I have nothing to add to my statement in the House on 19th January about the unjustified attack on


British property in Port Harcourt. There have been no reports of damage to British property elsewhere as a result of the completely unfounded—and, indeed, fantastic —story that British troops were being sent to fight in Nigeria.

Mr. Tilney: Is a record being kept of all damage to British property caused by this civil war? Have both sides been warned that they will be expected to make good that damage in due course?

Mr. Thomas: We have no official representation in the eastern part, but we are, of course, closely watching the question of British property involved.

Rhodesia

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the renewed negotiations with Mr. Smith's Government.

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has studied Mr. Ian Smith's comments upon the last official statement of Government policy on Rhodesia; and whether he will now make a further statement.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent moves by the Rhodesian Constitutional Association to enlist support among moderate Rhodesians for a negotiated settlement with Great Britain.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any progress towards a settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

Mr. George Thomson: I would refer the right hon. and hon. Members to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 25th January to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). We have noted with interest, the moves to which the hon. Member for Bromley refers.

Mr. Wall: Now that the judges have declared that Mr. Smith's Government are in fact the de facto Government of

Rhodesia, is it not becoming increasingly clear that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has failed? Do they really intend to take no new initiative to try to reach a compromise before it is too late?

Mr. Thomson: I congratulate the hon. Member on having mastered the 197 pages of text of the Rhodesian judgment so quickly. His interpretation of it is certainly not mine. Nothing that has taken place so far makes it necessary for Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their attitude towards the validity of current Rhodesian legislation or the status of the illegal régime. I may add that it is to be noted that, although the judges gave rather differing judgments, none of them argued that the régime should be given recognition outside Rhodesia, whether de facto or de jure.

Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Smith in his statement at the end of December said that the difference between the Governments was not one of principle but of degree? Lord Alport in another place last Thursday said that there was scope for agreement and compromise. The Minister of State in another place said that the door was not closed. Has not the time come for the right hon. Gentleman to take the initiative and try to seek a satisfactory solution to this problem?

Mr. Thomson: The door is certainly not closed as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, but I had understood that it was the general feeling on both sides of the House that the changed position that Mr. Smith took up when I met him in Salisbury represented a change of principle and not of degree. I read Lord Alport's speech with great interest. He was courteous enough to consult me and tell me that he was making it, though I am not in any way committed to what he said. But I also noted that the illegal régime in Rhodesia did everything it could to prevent the people of Rhodesia hearing what Lord Alport said.

Mr. Hunt: As one who has consistently opposed the Smith régime, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what specific and positive encouragement the Government are now giving to the forces of moderation in Rhodesia? Is it not a


fact that a major impediment to the work of bodies such as the Rhodesia Constitutional Association is the insistence upon Nibmar, which is regarded by moderate opinion both inside and outside Rhodesia as totally unreasonable and unrealistic?

Mr. Thomson: There are matters like Nibmar and other serious problems, but it is impossible to begin considering them so long as the régime takes up the kind of position of principle that it adopted during my talks. I have been studying with interest, as I am sure every hon. and right hon. Gentleman has, the recent developments inside Rhodesia, but it would not be helpful for me to make any comment on these developments.

Mr. Bellenger: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, whether the policy of Her Majesty's Government has failed or not, it seems to have reached a position of stop without any go? Can my right hon. Friend ignore, as he seems to be doing, the position as outlined in another place that there is very little real disagreement, and in fact a considerable chance of agreement that might settle this problem? Should he now not consider whether he can open the door a little wider—he said he was not going to slam it—because where there is a will there is a way?

Mr. Thomson: I think my right hon. Friend's remarks ought to be directed to Mr. Smith in Salisbury and not me. If he studies seriously and objectively the report that I gave to the House after I came back, he will discover that it is Mr. Smith who has begun to close the door, not me.

Mr. Maudling: As the position of the chiefs appears to be of extreme importance and as they are elected by their own people, would the Secretary of State make clear the grounds on which the Government affirm that the chiefs cannot be regarded as representative of their people for constitutional purposes, and also what changes could be made in their position to meet this problem?

Mr. Thomson: The objection to the chiefs for this purpose is not that they ale not Africans, as is sometimes said, but that they are not legitimate political representatives for the purpose of forming a blocking mechanism. Indeed, our objection to the chiefs in this rôle is the

same as the objection of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the previous Government to the chiefs forming an indaba as a test of acceptance.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman did not make the position clear. He said that they are not acceptable political representatives. But precisely why not? They are elected by the people they represent.

Mr. Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman knows why.

Mr. Thomson: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is as familiar as I am with the facts. The chiefs themselves are appointed by the régime in Rhodesia, they are paid by the régime, and can be dismissed by the régime.

Mr. Henig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on this side of the House feel that he and his colleagues have taken enough initiative towards the rebels in Rhodesia, and, if there is some movement towards the kind of agreement indicated from the opposite side of the House, it is now up to Mr. Smith to suggest that Southern Rhodesia return to constitutional rule and not for us to make further concessions?

Mr. Thomson: Yes. I think I agree basically with my hon. Friend's comments. Mr. Smith's New Year message gave no indication that he might be ready to depart from the position he took up with me during our talks. As I said, I understood that the change in Mr. Smith's position at that time was something that was recognised by both sides of the House as erecting formidable obstacles to progress.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information he has now given to the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee about firms involved in breaking sanctions against Rhodesia and the countries in which they are based;

(2) what proposals he has now put to the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee concerning the extension of sanctions and the internationalisation of responsibility for both their administration and the investigation of sanction breaking.

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to the Commonwealth


Sanctions Committee on tightening sanctions against Rhodesia.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in the tightening up of sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. George Thomson: As the proceedings of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee are confidential, I cannot disclose what proposals have been made, or what information has been given, to it.
We are, of course, constantly seeking, in consultation with other Commonwealth Governments, ways of making the existing mandatory sanctions more effective. It would be undesirable, however, to give the régime advance warning of any conclusions reached, or new measures in view.

Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that we should pass on to Commonwealth Governments full information about the way in which France—and in particular firms like Total—is deliberately undermining sanctions, so that they can assist us in bringing effective pressure to bear? Would not my right hon. Friend also agree that it is only through the internationalisation of sanctions provisions that we can make effective what, for Britain, is a very expensive operation?

Mr. Thomson: Without commenting on the particular incident mentioned by my hon. Friend, I think that there is room for other Commonwealth countries to follow up as effectively as we do allegations of particular breaches of sanctions, and of course the United Nations Organisation is also assisting in this matter.

Mr. Gardner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the incidents referred to by the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) are evidence that sanctions are beginning to work? Will he take heart from this and propose to our Commonwealth colleagues real, effective sanctions on oil?

Mr. Thomson: The test which I have always sought to apply to any particular sanctions measure is not whether it is punitive, but whether it is effective in producing a change of attitude in Rhodesia. I think that some of the

changes that one sees in Rhodesia are evidence that there is an increasing awareness there that the present path on which the illegal régime has led Rhodesia is sterile.

Mr. Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend say what direct representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government about this deliberate flouting of United Nations' decisions on the import of oil into Rhodesia?

Mr. Thomson: That is another question, and one for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Braine: The right hon. Gentleman said that there was evidence in Rhodesia of the effectiveness of sanctions. Can he say whether any study has been made by his Department of the effect on British firms which are observing sanctions, and if not, why not?

Mr. Manuel: They are not complaining; only the hon. Gentleman is.

Mr. Thomson: All aspects of sanctions are under continuous study by my Department, and other Departments of the Government.

Mr. John Fraser: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is within the power of the United Nations to make further sanctions against communications with Rhodesia, and will he recommend action which will enable a United Nations presence to be established on roads and railways leading from Mozambique to Rhodesia to check what is going in, and who is sending it?

Mr. Thomson: I think that that suggestion comes under the heading that I used in my main Answer, that it is not feasible to give details of any particular propositions that may be in mind.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assessment of the political and economic consequences of sanctions against Rhodesia based on the latest evidence available.

Mr. George Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave him on 5th December, 1967.—[Vol. 755, c. 1108–9.]

Mr. Biffen: The lapse of time since that Answer was given surely indicates


that sanctions are continuing to fail, other than to consolidate rather than diminish the domestic political strength of Mr. Lin Smith. In these circumstances, will the hon. Gentleman recommend to his right hon. Friends that the policy of sanctions should be discontinued because it is becoming a tragic farce, with considerable harm to our national self-interest?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that while European standards of living in Rhodesia remain higher than ours, the main victims of sanctions are Africans whose prospects of advancement are being retarded by a bigoted policy which is bad for Britain, and which has no hope of success?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir.

Swaziland

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the independence constitution of Swaziland; and the assistance offered before and after independence, by the United Kingdom.

Mr. George Thomas: Any constitutional changes required will be considered at the Swaziland Independence Conference next month. The level of assistance for 1968–69 has recently been discussed with the Minister of Finance, and decisions will be taken shortly. The question of further assistance after independence will be one for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development and the Swaziland Government have already been informed that he will in due course be pleased to discuss this with them.

Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this constitutional conference will take place in Britain or in Swaziland, and whether the financial talks will be simultaneous with it or will come later?

Mr. Thomas: I believe I am right in suing that the talks will be in London. The question of aid is not usually discussed at the same time as the constitutional talks.

Mr. Judd: Would my hon. Friend not agree that, in this area of excessive racial tension, Britain should do everything possible financially to help the African

majority government in Swaziland, as indeed in Botswana, to make a go of it?

Mr. Thomas: As a country we have a very honourable record for helping African governments. I think we can look the world in the face and say that no one does better.

St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the visit of the Parliamentary delegation to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

Miss Lestor: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, if he will make a statement on the visit of the delegation of Members of Parliament to St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

Mr. George Thomson: As a result of the Parliamentary delegation's discussions with the Premier of St. Kitts/Nevis/ Anguilla on the one hand and leading representatives of the community in Anguilla on the other, Her Majesty's Government have made available a senior British civil servant to assist with the administration of Anguilla during an interim period of up to 12 months and with the object of working towards an agreed long-term solution. This has been done in response to invitations from the St. Kitts Government and the representatives of the Anguillans, both of whom have confirmed their understanding that the people of each island would refrain from hostile actions against individuals or property of the other during the interim period, and that efforts would be made in good faith to restore friendship and harmony. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) for their good offices. Their dedication and industry have made an outstanding contribution to helping towards the solution of this intractable problem.
The relevant correspondence will be placed in the library.

Mr. Marten: May I congratulate our two colleagues on the patience and skill with which they have carried out this mission?
Do the Government now accept direct responsibility for defence and external affairs for the island of Anguilla separate from St. Kitts? Secondly, do the Government accept the validity of action taken by the Anguilla Council which has the approval of the senior British official?

Mr. Thomson: I think that we have made some progress towards finding a solution to this difficult problem. I think in some ways the less I say about some of the details the better, but the legal position remains as laid down by Parliament in the West Indies Act, 1967.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will it be within the functions of the senior civil servant to advise on the maintenance of the rule of law in St. Kitts and on the undesirability of the interference by the Executive with the procedures of justice?

Mr. Thomson: The official's functions will be to assist in the administration of Anguilla and to work for a long-term solution acceptable to all concerned. It will, therefore, be open to him to make recommendations to Her Majesty's Government and also to the Government of St. Kitts on the many problems associated with this situation.

British Honduras

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the six principles will be the criteria on which Her Majesty's Government grants independence to British Honduras.

Mr. George Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to his Question of 14th December, 1967.—[Vol. 756, c. 216.]

Sir F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that I am putting the Question again, and in another form, only because his previous Answer was profoundly unsatisfactory? Will he tell the House whether, out of the six principles, self-determination will be the guiding principle on which the British Honduras problem is settled?

Mr. Thomas: I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept my assurance that I fully understood his reason for putting

down the Question again. I knew that the Answer would be unsatisfactory today. The voice of the people of Honduras will, of course, be fully taken into account.

Sir F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, what answer he has sent to the representations in favour of a referendum on the lines of that held in Gibraltar to ascertain the wishes of the people of British Honduras on their future allegiance, which he has received from Members of the Opposition in British Honduras and from other organisations and individuals connected with the territory.

Mr. George Thomas: My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary confirmed the statement in regard to independence made by my hon. Friend in the Adjournment debate on the 12th August, 1966 and drew attention to the announcement in British Honduras on 16th August, 1967, of an agreement between the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition about the procedure for consultation when proposals are put forward by the mediator.—[Vol. 733, c. 2056.]

Sir F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that was not even an Answer to the Question? Will he say quite definitely what are the reasons which seem to prevent the Government giving an assurance about a referendum among the people of British Honduras on whether they wish to go to British Guatemala or stay British, as the Government did in the case of Gibraltar?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman is getting excited without cause. I can give the assurance that the voice of the democratic Government of Honduras will be consulted, and is being consulted, about the right avenue for making arrangements for consultation.

Mr. Maudling: This is the formula which the Government used about Gibraltar in the early stages. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is unsatisfactory? Will he give a categorical assurance that the people of this Colony will not be transferred to alien sovereignty against their will?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Thomas: I am about to answer. I have never been shy about answering


questions. One cannot answer this question "Yes" or "No". The people of Honduras will be consulted about their future, and they will decide at the end of the day.

Mr. Henig: May 1 probe a little further on this? My hon. Friend referred to consultations with the democratically elected Government of British Honduras. As he knows, many of us welcome this. Will he confirm that if the constitutional status of British Honduras is to be changed in the interests of Guatemala, all sections of all interests and parties in British Honduras must first be consulted?

Mr. Thomas: I have given the House a full assurance. The people of British Honduras will be consulted about their future.

Sir J. Rodgers: Perhaps I might seek clarification of the hon. Gentleman's last remark. What does he mean when he says that the people of Honduras will be consulted? Does he mean through their Government, which his earlier statement suggested, or does he mean through a referendum? If so, why cannot he say so?

Mr. Thomas: The Government of Honduras will advise Her Majesty's Government on the best way of consulting the people of British Honduras. It will be a new principle if this House is to decide for another Government how their people should be consulted.

Cyprus (British Forces)

Mr. Gardner: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Cyprus regarding the presence of British troops there, following recent developments in Greece and if he will make a statement.

Mr. George Thomas: None, Sir.
As regards the second part of the Question, we are in constant touch with the Government of Cyprus, as with other Commonwealth Governments, on matters of common concern.

Mr. Gardner: Can my hon. Friend whether our bases in Cyprus are fully used? If they are not, would not

my hon. Friend agree that they might be handed back to the Government of Cyprus now, rather than allow them to become a bargaining point between the Greeks and the Turks?

Mr. Thomas: The use of bases is a question which my hon. Friend should address to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Gibraltar

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Gibraltar.

Mr. George Thomson: There has been no change in the internal situation in Gibraltar. The economy continues in a satisfactory condition despite Spanish restrictions on the frontier and in the air.

Mr. Taylor: Could the right hon. Gentleman give any details of the progress of talks on constitutional development referred to in the Written Answer in December? Who will take part in these?

Mr. Thomson: There is another Written Answer on the subject which I believe is to be given today, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Minister of State at the Commonwealth Office is leaving for Gibraltar next week, where he will begin the process of constitutional discussions. This visit will be a preliminary to more formal discussions shortly afterwards.

Sir W. Teeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us—perhaps he will do so in the Written Answer—whom the Minister of State will meet out there? Will it be all parties or only the Government?

Mr. Thomson: One of the reasons for asking my noble Friend to make a preliminary visit in advance of formal constitutional discussions is precisely to enable him to hear the widest possible range of points of view.

Sir F. Bennett: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, in the interim before the final constitutional talks, there will be no question of any further talks with Spain affecting the future sovereignty of Gibraltar?

Mr. Thomson: That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but, of course, the sovereignty of Gibraltar, as has been repeatedly said by Her Majesty's Government, is not something which we can allow to be at issue.

St. Vincent

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intends to grant associated status to St. Vincent.

Mr. George Thomas: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 12th December, 1967, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith).—[Vol. 756, c. 107.]

Sir J. Rodgers: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Are there any results yet from these constitutional discussions? Is he aware that many of us would urge great caution before granting associated status to St. Vincent in order to avoid the development of a situation such as we see today in St. Kitts?

Mr. Thomas: The negotiations are still proceeding. We must take into account the fact that the present Government of the territory came to power for the first time only in May last year and they have been greatly occupied with the island's problems.

Trade and Political Relations

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the failure to proceed with negotiations about British entry into the European Economic Community, what plans he has for the purpose of reviving trade and political relations with the Commonwealth.

Mr. George Thomson: There has been no change in the British Government's policy of maintaining especially close relations in all fields with the other member Governments of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Shinwell: Does my right hon. Friend realise that we are getting the worst of both worlds? On the one hand, the old Commonwealth countries are losing confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and on the other, apparently, de Gaulle has little confidence in them,

either? Would it not be better to sit down and take a cool look at the problem, recall the five Ministers at present in Strasbourg and revise our policy?

Mr. Thomson: I wish that my hon. Friend had couched his original Question and his supplementary in a less uncharacteristically contentious way, because I was very anxious to assure him of the importance which the Government attach to our Commonwealth relationships, especially economically, and especially in the light of developments in Europe.

Mr. Farr: How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his Answer with the fact that in September the Government failed to renew the Australian Meat Agreement and in November, for the first time for many years, failed to renew the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement?

Mr. Thomson: I recently paid a visit to Australia and the point did not loom as large in the mind of the Australian Government as it apparently does in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I remind him that trading relationships between Britain and the Commonwealth are still a very important part of our total trade and that we recognise them as such.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must accept that we are excluded from the E.E.C. for at least some time in the foreseeable future? Bearing that in mind, what plans has he for initiating talks to increase Commonwealth trade and economic relationships with Commonwealth countries?

Mr. Thomson: The devaluation of the £ offers Britain immense opportunities for an increase in exports, not only to a number of Commonwealth countries but to a whole range of countries. This must be the economic priority for Her Majesty's Government in present circumstances.

Fiji (Tourism)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the report he has received on the results of the official tour in Australia of the representatives of the tourist industry in Fiji.

Mr. George Thomas: The Question presumably refers to a tour in Australia last September, which was sponsored by


the Fiji Visitors Bureau and Qantas to promote tourism in Fiji. This was not an official tour, and I understand that no report will be published.

Mr. Irvine: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on 22nd June last his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said that if a proposition were put to him about tourism in Fiji, he would be prepared to consider it Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Gentleman had a word with his right hon. Friend, since this might be a proposition worth considering?

Mr. Thomas: The position is unchanged. We would still be prepared to consider it.

Ocean Island Phosphate Industry (Talks)

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked.he Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent talks in Wellington between members of the British Phosphate Commission.

Mr. George Thomas: Yes, Sir. It was lot the British Phosphate Commissioners put officials representing the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom who met in Wellington in September, 1967, to discuss future arrangements for the Ocean Island phosphate industry. They made agreed recommendations, which have been placed in he Library. These have since been approved by the three Governments.

Mr. Irvine: Do the recommendations mean that the taxation of 80 per cent. of the amount that is given to the owners of Ocean Island will, in fact, be continued?

Mr. Thomas: The agreement means that there will be much greater advantage for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, and I hope also for the Banaban community.

Zambia

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what recent inquiries he has made about the assembly in Zambia of armed terrorist groups trained in Tanzania and intended for aggression against Rhodesia; what representations have been made; and what other action is being taken.

Mr. George Thomas: I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member on 5th December and 24th October last.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: May we now have an assurance that no further aid will be granted to Zambia until its territory has ceased to be used for staging terrorists trained in Tanzania and intended for aggression against Rhodesia, for which territory Her Majesty's Government claim responsibility?

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman seems to pursue a vendetta against Zambia. I will not give the assurance for which he asks because such an assurance would be based on a false premise.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this country should give every possible support to the Government of Zambia and demonstrate our friendship to the Government of that country, rather than the sort of friendship which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wishes us to demonstrate to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

Mr, Thomas: We have often demonstrated our friendship with Zambia.

Mauritius

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs how many people were killed and injured in the recent disturbances in the island of Mauritius; how many were arrested; on what charges they were tried; how many were convicted, and what sentences were imposed; and if he will make a statement on the present state of law and order there.

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Mauritius.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Mauritius and Rodrigues.

Mr. George Thomson: Since my statement to the House on 23rd January, the situation in Mauritus has improved. Although there has been some further violence and intercommunal tension remains, the last two nights have passed off quietly.


In Rodrigues the situation is now reported to be calm.
As the details asked for are rather long, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: In connection with the last phrase in my Question, is law and order functioning, what is the state of the judiciary there and is the rule of law being observed?

Mr. Thomson: The judiciary is certainly functioning, and extremely well. I wish to pay tribute to those who are working in the present emergency.

Mr. Braine: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, there has been a suggestion in the Press that insufficient forces have been available to contain the communal disorders. Is this so and, if not, is he satisfied that no further troops will he required? Secondly, as he is engaged in constitutional talks with the Mauritius Government—and, therefore, I would not ask him to give a categorical answer now—will he bear in mind the dangers of the island going into independence with a state of emergency and with communal disorders still continuing? Will he, therefore, consider the possibility—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must he brief.

Mr. Thomson: I think that the best answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that H.M.S. "Euryalus" has now left Mauritius, which is an indication that the forces there are fully adequate to maintain law and order.

Mr. Fisher: Having recently been concerned in St. Kitts and Anguilla—and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the kind remarks he has made about my work there—may I ask whether he will inquire if there is any danger, when Mauritius becomes independent, of Rodrigues, which is only 350 miles away, declaring a similar U.D.I. against Mauritius? If there is that danger, which I hope there is not, will he say what steps can be taken to prevent it in advance?

Mr. Thomson: The disturbances in Rodrigues had, in the first instance, an economic rather than a political origin,

although I do not exclude the fact that there were political factors involved. The situation is now calm, and I would not like at this stage to speculate on the future there.

Following are the details:
I regret to say that the death roll has now risen to 24; 43 people have been seriously injured. Up to yesterday morning, 344 people had been arrested. Those against whom no substantive evidence was established have been released and the remainder are being brought to trail as soon as possible. First judgments were given yesterday. Sentences of up to five years' penal servitude were imposed on two persons convicted for possession of offensive weapons; 19 other persons are now before the court.
I should like to pay tribute to the officers and men of H.M. Ships "Euryalus" and "Cambrian" and of the King's Shropshire Light infantry for the help they have given to the local security forces in dealing with the disorders. H.M.S. "Euryalus" has now left Mauritius.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange to attend the next meeting of the International Monetary Fund when it reviews the United Kingdom economy.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Prime Minister what plans he has for meeting the Managing Director and officials of the International Monetary Fund during his visit to Washington.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): "No" and "None for formal meetings", respectively, Sir.

Mr. Marten: Since the right hon. Gentleman has been directly concerned since last August with the economic affairs of this country, and in view of his close connection with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the recent measures, would it not add to the credibility of the economic programme which the Government recently outlined if the Prime Minister himself attend to explain the effectiveness of the Socialist policies to our creditors in the I.M.F.?

The Prime Minister: It is obvious that the hon. Gentleman does not have much idea of how I.M.F. operations are carried out. There will be talks in February between members of the staff of the


I.M.F. and officials of Government Departments; and probably my right hon. Friend will see the head of the I.M.F. Mission while he is in London.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman think again about his Answer in the light of the Lord President's speech on Sunday because, if devaluation was a giant stride along the road to the fulfilment of the British Socialist mission, should he not, when visiting Washington, out of sheer courtesy tell those who are responsible for the management of our economy what further giant strides he is proposing?

The Prime Minister: Neither the I.M.F. nor anyone else in Washington is responsible for the management of our economy. It is not unusual, when there are visits by senior Ministers to Washington, that among those invited to the embassy for a chat with a visiting Minister are representatives of leading international organisations, including the I.M.F. I have myself met Mr. Schweitzer on that basis and no doubt I shall do so again. He is perfectly capable of understanding and reading my right hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. Park: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are becoming considerably irritated by the way in which Her Majesty's Government appear to accept advice and policy prescriptions from the I.M.F. and private international bankers rather than from hon. Members who have been elected to this House? Is he further aware that if this impression is allowed to continue Parliamentary democracy itself will be the victim?

The Prime Minister: I think the irritation from which my hon. Friend is suffering arises from the way in which he looks at these things. It is not based al: all on the facts. Following the recent very full statement on economic measures which I announced from this Box, the Press asked the directors of the Fund what they thought about it and they said that it was a matter for us and not for them.

Sir C. Osborne: Will the Prime Minister consider laying in this House a copy of the report which he is obliged to submit to the I.M.F. for their approval so that the House may be informed that

the economy measures have the approval of the I.M.F.?

The Prime Minister: After the many debates on the I.M.F. and on the economy in this Session, I do not think any hon. Member has any lack of knowing the economic facts. Indeed, we have voted on them. In regard to the question of a report, as I have said, talks are held in London and then it is for the I.M.F. officials to go back to report on them.

Mr. Dickens: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance now that Mr. Schweitzer and the I.M.F. will not be consulted on the Chancellor's Budget proposals before they are put before this House on 19th March?

The Prime Minister: I have never known the I.M.F. to be consulted about any proposals in a Budget of any Chancellor, nor would it be. On the Letter of Intent, which speaks for itself, my hon. Friend will find exactly the extent of the obligation we have, which does not involve seeking permission for internal matters, whether they are budgetary or otherwise.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP AND PEACEFUL CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister what measures have been undertaken to arrive at agreement with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in concluding the treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I have as yet nothing to add to the information I gave the House on 25th January.—[Vol. 757. c. 587.]

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend agree that this valuable start he has participated in and negotiated with the Soviet Union could lead to the establishment of a security and peace council, which has been proposed from both sides of the Iron Curtain? Will he take advantage of his last visit to the Soviet Union to encourage progress in this direction?

The Prime Minister: In my report to the House last Thursday I answered two


Questions on a treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation. I stressed the importance of our discussions on other bilateral matters, particularly trade, navigation and other questions. I also stressed what my hon. Friend has just mentioned, our decision to work together in preparation for a European security conference.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the profession, repeated quite recently by the Soviet Union, of friendship and peaceful co-operation, when he was in Moscow did my right hon. Friend care to ask those whom he met—Mr. Kosygin and the others—what they were doing in the Mediterranean and whether this was a demonstration of friendship and peaceful co-operation?

The Prime Minister: I am not certain that the Soviet Union have a treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation with some of the countries I assume my right hon. Friend has in mind, but we certainly discussed the Middle East very fully and everything that could be done by the Soviet Union and Britain to help to reduce tension in that area.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will now initiate a sanctions conference of both Commonwealth and other involved world powers, to make sanctions against the illegal régime of Rhodesia effective, and so encourage the loyal people of that territory, and prevent an ultimate African blood bath.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, Adequate arrangements already exist through the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee and the United Nations for international consideration of these matters.

Mr. Molloy: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there ought now to be a more intensive effort to implement sanctions thoroughly by other nations outside the Commonwealth who are involved? Would he also agree that such action ought to be directed not only to bringing down the rebel Smith régime, but to encouraging those liberal forces in Rhodesia who want to see legality and loyalty to the Crown established?

The Prime Minister: I have on a number of occasions reported to the House—

so has my right hon. Friend—about measures we are taking to deal with reported breaches of sanctions arrangements by other countries. I have reported in particular on the present state of the work of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, which has reported about some of these breaches and what ought to be done about them.

Mr. Peyton: Whatever the Prime Minister's personal view, or that of anyone else, may be of Mr. Smith, does it not strike him as a little odd that when he has abandoned on behalf of the country its world rôle, he should be pursuing this police task against Rhodesia alone?

The Prime Minister: It obviously has not occurred to the hon. Member that this House is responsible for Rhodesia and all of us have said, at least the leaders of all parties have said, that we will not abandon that responsibility until we have a settlement in Rhodesia which fulfils the principles that all of us adhere to.

Mr. Bellenger: Would not my right hon. Friend recognise that the African blood bath is occurring now in the northern part of Africa and Her Majesty's Government are stoking it up with the supply of arms to the indigenous population?

Sir G. Nabarro: On both sides too.

The Prime Minister: I think that a very reprehensible comment to make. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that no one
in this House—[Interruption.] I hope no one in this House—and we have had pressure in different parts of the House to supply arms to both sides—will associate themselves with the phrase that we are stoking up a blood bath. We have done everything in our power to end the fighting in Nigeria, including trying to discourage other countries from getting involved in supporting secession in that country.

Sir G. Nabarro: Talking of blood baths, why does the Prime Minister continue to consent to Britain supplying arms to both sides in Nigeria?

The Prime Minister: We are not supplying arms to both sides in Nigeria. The hon. Member, perhaps for the first time, has got his facts totally wrong.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has my right hon. Friend been able to ascertain why the


Rhodesian Tobacco Traders Association's report was censored by the Smith régime on 4th January? May this be because Rhodesian exports have been doing less well than some hon. Members opposite think? Can my right hon. Friend also say why the illegal régime censored Her Majesty's Christmas message to the Governor?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will realise that I am not responsible for the exercise of censorship in Rhodesia. The fact is that they have not only censored information about tobacco but they did everything in their power last week o stop the important statement by Lord, Alport getting through to Rhodesia. This shows the lengths to which they will go in exercising their censorship. It is clear that tobacco sanctions are biting a great deal harder than hon. Members opposite are prepared to admit.

Earl of Dalkeith: Is it not about time that the Prime Minister tried to explain the extraordinary inconsistency of his attitude to minority rule, whereby he condemns it in Rhodesia, condones it in some Commonwealth countries and behind the Iron Curtain and is positively revelling in it in this country?

The Prime Minister: The answer is that we are responsible for the situation in Rhodesia and no Government in this country since the very beginning of this century has conferred self-government except on the basis of majority rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "Aden?"] Hon. Members opposite are wrong in suggesting that about Aden. The previous Government and ourselves were prepared in legal discussion with the then legal Government of Rhodesia to offer them something short of majority rule. The fact that they rejected that is the reason why Rhodesia has got into this situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (VISIT TO WASHINGTON)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Prime Minister what are the purposes of his forthcoming visit to Washington.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the purpose of his forthcoming visit to Washington, and the matters which he hopes to discuss with President Johnson.

The Prime Minister: The purpose of my visit to Washington is to have a personal exchange of views with the President about the international situation. The House will be glad to know that, in addition to my meetings with President Johnson, I hope also to have discussions in Canada with Mr. Pearson and in New York with U Thant.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the dangerous situation in Korea and the great battle which is now under way in Vietnam, will the Prime Minister assure the President that any American policy which seeks peace by negotiation and which maintains a firm resistance to aggression, on land or on the high seas, will always have the full support of this country?

The Prime Minister: Undoubtedly both the Korean and the Vietnam situation will be discussed with the President. We have made clear throughout our support of the President's proposals for peace by negotiation in Vietnam. Indeed, this was the subject of some of my discussions in Moscow last week. With regard to Korea, I think that the situation is best left where it is at the moment—in the Security Council.

Mr. Winnick: As long as the war continues, will the Prime Minister express to President Johnson the deep concern felt in Britain at the deliberate American bombing of the civilian population in North Vietnam? Will the Prime Minister continue to press President Johnson to stop the bombing so that talks can begin and we can end this horrifying war?

The Prime Minister: I discussed at very great length last week in Moscow, and shall no doubt be discussing again next week in Washington, the precise circumstances in which, following the stopping of the bombing, there could be prompt and meaningful talks. There is now very little between the two sides so far as their public declarations are concerned. However, I think that the Americans have the right to be assured that this action will follow on the cessation of the bombing. I think that the North Vietnamese have the right to he assured that the Americans will stop the bombing if this follows. It therefore needs the friends of both sides to persuade them to cross the very narrow bridge which now separates them.

Mr. Maudling: Does the Prime Minister intend to discuss with the President the advisability of the Americans taking over any responsibility in the Gulf or the Far East when we withdraw from east of Suez?

The Prime Minister: No; we have no views to put to the President of the United States on that question. We shall, of course, be interested to hear his views on this situation. However, the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that we have exchanged a number of messages on this question.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When he is in Washington, will the Prime Minister get into contact, not only with the President, but with a very courageous Congressman, George Brown, who has always opposed the stupidity of the Vietnam war? Will the Prime Minister get in touch with the rising volume of public opinion that condemns this war in the interests of the United States of America?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that I met the Mr. George Brown in question last autumn. I saw him in Scarborough together with another distinguished Congressman who came over at the same time with him. However, if I am to discuss the Vietnamese question with all Congressmen and Senators who have views to nut forward. I shall not have time for talking to the President.

Mr. Blaker: Now that we are to give up our peace-keeping rôle east of Suez, does the Prime Minister feel that British Governments in future will have as much

influence on the formulation of American policy as they sometimes had in the past?

The Prime Minister: I think that we will continue to have a very important influence on the formulation of American policy. Over a very large number of years we have had our ups and downs in these matters. The biggest down was 12 years ago. We have very much more influence in these matters now than right hon. Members opposite had then, when they were not even in communication for three months and had to seek an international loan from the Americans through the medium of an American journalist.

Mr. Heath: What attitude does the Prime Minister propose to take with the President towards the imposition of export incentives in the United States which will affect our trade?

The Prime Minister: I think that the biggest cause for anxiety, as I think that the Leader of the Opposition will agree, is the proposal about border taxes coupled with export rebates. We have already informed the United States Government of our very strong feelings in this matter. I expressed them to Mr. Katzenbach when he was over here recently. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, if measures of this kind are taken which might have a very bad effect on spiralling world trade downwards, we should have to reserve our position entirely about the withdrawal of the export rebate.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1876 (AMENDMENT)

3.35 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to end the power of the Secretary of State to grant certificates to certain persons to enable them to carry out experiments upon animals without the use of an anaesthetic.
The object of the Bill would not be to abolish all vivisection. Its purpose would be to bring to an end experiments which are calculated to cause pain unless an anaesthetic is given. Vivisection is still governed by the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. Ninety years ago, very little vivisection was practised. Indeed, in that year, only 300 experiments were performed upon living animals. The figure has now leapt to over 4½ million. If my arithmetic he right, the 1876 number has multiplied by no fewer than 15,000 in the intervening period.
In that period, the law has not been changed to keep pace with the colossal growth in the number of experiments. Indeed, the reverse has been the case, because the spirit and the intentions of the 1876 Act have been frustrated over the years. One of the main purposes of the 1876 Act was to require the use of an anaesthetic whenever an experiment was performed which was calculated to cause pain. A few exceptions were to be permitted, and a system was adopted whereby the Home Secretary was authorised to grant certificates to scientists to exempt them from the need to anaesthetise.
The total number of animals then used was about 300. It follows that Parliament then intended only a fraction of that number to be experimented upon without an anaesthetic. Instead of a fraction of 300 animals being operated upon without anaesthetic, 4 million animals are now

experimented upon without an anaesthetic. Thus, it is clear that the intention behind the 1876 Act has been frustrated.
It is now imperative to amend that Act. I accept that many of these experiments may not involve the animal in any real pain, but at least there must be hundreds of thousands of animals, including dogs, cats and of the domestic animals, which are submitted to intense suffering. Sometimes that suffering is prolonged.
The Bill has the support of a large number of doctors and scientists. Many of them believe that the experiments in which no aæsthetic is administered and where there is acute pain are wasteful, repetitive, misleading and morally unjustified. Most of the animal welfare societies have also given their support to the Bill. One exception is the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection. The union advocates total and immediate abolition of all vivisection. It will not countenance any compromise as it deems the Bill to be. Compromise or not, I ask the House to give me leave to introduce the Bill as one step forward in bringing to an end those experiments, which often border on the barbaric.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Body, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Gurden, Mr. Houghton, Sir R. Cary, Mr. Maddan, Sir R. Russell and Mr. W. T. Williams.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT, 1876 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to end the power of the Secretary of State to grant certificates to certain persons to enable them to carry out experiments upon animals without the use of an anaesthetic, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BDLL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — WINTER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

3.40 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Yesterday, hardly noticed, the House agreed on the nod to the Question,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £351,701,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1968 for services included in the following Supplementary Estimates."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 883.]
There followed a long list of 31 items giving the details of the Supplementary Estimates.
I feel very fortunate today in being the first Member to have the opportunity of speaking on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which begins:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to Your Majesty in this Session of Parliament,"—
perhaps the words "cheerfully granted" are an overstatement; the word "supply" refers to over £9.000 million—
have resolved to grant unto Your Majesty the sum hereinafter mentioned;
In Clause 1, the sum of £351,701.000 is mentioned.
The Winter Supplementary Estimates were put before us in a number of booklets which were laid on the Table. The first four, presented on 30th November, were Civil, No. 17, of no less than £201 million; Defence (Central), of £2·3 million; Defence (Navy), of £10 million; and Defence (Army) of –18 million.
Not content with the total of £231 million laid before the House on 30th November, the Government brought forward more Supplementary Estimates on 16th January. Note the date; the very day when the Prime Minister was about

to make his statement on savings. With those revised Supplementary Estimates went two further documents, Nos. 64 and 65. The first Supplementaries, the Civil Supplementary Estimates, were really Supplementaries to Supplementaries amounting to £48 million. Then there were the revised Supplementary Estimates of £72 million, which was the final figure, making a total of £351 million.
Therefore, just as the Prime Minister was slaughtering all those sacred cows, knocking over those totem poles and giving us so-called savings, some a little bogus, of £300 million, the Departments were knocking those savings for six, utterly destroying them by bringing forward these Estimates for £351 million at the same time. The whole good that he was doing at the moment was completely undone by the Supplementary Estimates which went through on the nod. Just as the sacred cows were being slaughtered, more were being fattened up by his Departmental Ministers, and the totem poles were being refurbished behind him. The Prime Minister told us in his famous statement then that there would be a massive shift of resources to export. But at the same time the reverse was going on; there was a massive shift away from exports to home consumption in the Supplementary Estimates.
I calculate that each additional £40,000 of Government expenditure since the Government came to power in 1964 has meant an additional civil servant. Therefore, I claim that the extra £351 million means the introduction of 10,000 extra civil servants to administer these vast sums of money. They were the largest Winter Supplementary Estimates we have ever had, coming on top of the largest Civil Estimates we have ever had, totalling £7,700 million, and Defence Estimates of £2,000 million. As the Prime Minister said on 16th January, there has been an increase of 40 to 50 per cent. since 1964 in the Civil Estimates.
To see the full horror of this picture, one must study the revised report of the Estimates Committee. On page V of the First Report from the Estimates Committee, Winter Supplementary Estimates, one can see the full picture for the past four years. The Budget Estimates in 1964 on the civil side started at just under £5,000 million. In the next year


they rose to £5,442 million, in the following year they rose by another £600 million to £6,000 million, and this year they rose by no less than £1,700 million compared with last year.
In addition, look at the history of the Winter Supplementary Estimates. In 1964–65 they were £60 million, and in 1965–66 they were £149 million. Last year they were £159 million, and now they have risen to £351 million, the highest Supplementary Estimates ever. [Interruption.] That is bad budgeting, as one of my hon. Friends has just observed. The Estimates Committee said:
Your Committee wish once again to draw attention to the fact that for the third year running the Winter Supplementary Estimates are much higher than in previous years. This is mainly due to deliberate acts of Government policy determined subsequent to the compilation of the main Estimates, and only to a minor extent due to inaccurate estimating in the first place.
In succeeding pages, one can see how this is made up. There is the 39 per
increase in the Commonwealth services, with a Supplementary Estimate of £6 million. A lot of this is for Zambia, presumably arising out of the British Government's handling of the Rhodesian situation. In November, the Transport Boards wanted an extra £22 million to pay for the railways, etc. The Estimates Committee Report said:
It is estimated that a further Spring Supplementary Estimate of about £7 million will be required.
That has happened, so now we have Supper Supplementaries, Winter Supplementaries and Spring Supplementaries.

Sir Spencer Summers: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the Supplementary Estimate by the Transport Boards is a repetition of the same inaccurate estimating that has occurred in previous years?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) is Chairman of the Sub-Committee concerned and has detailed knowledge of what has happened. In the roads programme, because of Government policy, £3,100,000 had to be spent in addition due to the special winter programme announced by the Government as a measure to relieve the unemployment, which itself had been brought about

by policies initiated by the Government a few months earlier.
Investment grants went up by 22 per cent., requiring a Supplementary Estimate of £50 million. The Ministry of Power shows an increase of 7 per cent. The Estimate for the Ministry of Agriculture has also increased. For the Ministry of Public Building and Works, the increase is 4·9 per cent. In the Defence Supplementary Estimates, the Navy gets an extra £10 million and the Army an extra £18 million. The Air Force is not mentioned.
All this, going on all the time, builds up the picture which gives rise to the lack of confidence among our creditors and foreigners. No doubt Socialist speakers in the country will say that this vast increase in Supplementary Estimates is all due to foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. John Farr: My hon. Friend mentioned the Navy and Army Supplementary Estimates. Is not the R.A.F. Supplementary nearly £2 million under Class IX?

Mr. Gresham Cooke: My hon. Friend is probably right, and that additional Estimate is yet another reason for the expenditure getting out of hand.
As I was saying, no doubt Government speakers, briefed by Transport House, will say that all this is due to foot-and-mouth disease, but in fact it is only about one-tenth of the items. In looking further into this situation, the Estimates Committee produced its Seventh Special Report on 24th January. These revised Supplementary Estimates put on the Table on 16th January give a net increase of £72 million. The Committee reported:
In the case of investment grants, however, the additional £50 million asked for in November was stated in the Estimates to represent about 75 per cent. of the total increase required. It was, therefore, a shock to your Committee to find that a further £39 million should be sought only some six weeks later … the Board of Trade admit that this demand is due to underestimating on their part …
Later the Report comments:
… the House will be asked to agree to these Estimates on 24th January … it is clearly impossible for Your Committee to make any Report to the House on them in the time available. Your Committee hope, therefore, that every effort will be made to avoid recourse to such a procedure in future.


How can the Estimates Committee deal with a demand for £120 million thrown on the Table at the last moment a few days before the Consolidated Fund Bill is due for discussion?
I return to the point that in HANSARD one sees a long list of Supplementary Estimates. In addition to those I have referred to, the rate support grant for local revenue is up by £22 million; the National Health Service is also up by £22 million; National Insurance is up by £16 million, and there are a large number of other sums, each under about £10 million. It all mounts up to the very large sum we are discussing.
This is really why our creditors do not trust us. On the one hand, the Government promise to economise and, on the other, splash the money about almost secretively, hoping that no one will notice. Probably no one would have noticed if I had not been lucky in the ballot. One of the problems facing the country is the loss of confidence brought about by this sort of thing.
Government expenditure is completely out of control. We are saddled with the most extravagant Government we have ever had. The electorate are beginning to realise this. As the little schoolboy said to the Prime Minister the other day, "I am now calling my kittens Conservative kittens because they are now old enough to have their eyes open."

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the Chair if it knows if hon. Members who rise in their places are seeking to speak in the particular debate the House is on at the moment.

3.57 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: Anyone interested in the control of public expenditure by this House and concerned about the steadily increasing rate of growth of public expenditure generally will be greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for taking his good fortune in the ballot to raise a matter of this kind. As Chairman of the Sub-Committee of the Estimates Committee which looked into those Winter Supplementaries which we had time for, I take

the opportunity to make one or two observations on the Estimates themselves and on the procedure associated with this subject.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, out of the total of £351 million, about £201 million were the subject of Winter Supplementary Estimates presented to Parliament on 30th November. The Estimates Committee reported on that, for there was adequate time to do so. Those Supplementary Estimates came in roughly when expected, and the usual procedure for calling witnesses was gone through.
On each occasion when Supplementaries are presented, it has been the custom for a number of years for the Treasury to divide them into the categories—first, those attributable to a rise in costs; secondly, those attributable to policy decisions by the Government since the original Estimates were compiled thirdly, those falling into neither category. It is a telling factor in support of my hon. Friend's main proposition that the Treasury, in analysing the £201 million of Winter Supplementary Estimates presented in November, said that £109 million —more that half—was the result of deliberate acts of Government policy. How much of the remaining £130 million or so presented to Parliament since falls into that category it is impossible for us to say, because there has not been time for the Treasury to present to the Estimates Committee the customary memorandum analysing the Estimates in that way.
The fact that these Estimates are presented at such short notice is understandable. As the Estimates Committee has reported, it is due to the fact that there is great pressure on the Civil Contingencies Fund and there is, therefore, the need to submit extra Winter Supplementaries to Parliament in order to bail out the Fund. I want to say quite categorically that any suggestion that this situation is satisfactory because it could be put right by increasing the size of the Civil Contingencies Fund is one which would not be acceptable to the Estimates Committee. It was largely responsible, in conference with the Treasury a few years ago, for reducing to £75 million the Civil Contingencies Fund, which was then established at a much higher figure.
It was thought quite inappropriate, at a time when the control of public expenditure by this House was to be tightened up, to have so large a reserve fund out of which expenditure could be taken and the House informed and brought to deal with the situation after the event rather than before. It was for that reason that the size of the Civil Contingencies Fund was reduced.
It may be asked: has the time come to look at that again because the value of money is going down while the size of public expenditure is consistently going up? In considering that situation, it is important to reflect that there are two types of Supplementary Estimate, be they in spring, summer or winter, which may be brought before the House. There are those which not only derive from acts of Government policy but which are attributable to some emergency. There may be some terrible tornado or an earthquake in some part of the Commonwealth which it is thought merits financial contribution from this country. We have had the scourge of foot-and-mouth, which could not possibly have been foreseen. There are, therefore, large items of expenditure which come forward unexpectedly, which are of quite a different nature to a number of the others.
I would put forward the suggestion that, if a little more elbow room is required, those which are genuine emergencies might be dealt with from a separate emergency fund, civil or defence, which would replace the traditional Contingencies Fund used for Government policy reasons, bad estimating and the like. The position is far from satisfactory. We are told that in order to bail out the Civil Contingencies Fund no less than £48 million worth of Supplementaries, which would normally have come forward in the spring, have now to be brought forward and passed by this House, with no proper report from the Estimates Committee and with no time for anyone outside the Estimates Committee to have regard to what is going on.
We shall be interested to see whether the Spring Supplementaries reflect the bringing forward to which I have referred. It is a most unsatisfactory situation and it does not permit the Esti-

mates Committee to do its job properly. From time to time hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are good enough to pay tribute to the work of the Committee, but if the Government are to play ducks and drakes with the traditional procedure and deny us the opportunity to scrutinise these matters, it will make it a great deal more difficult for the Committee to do its work.
There are some minor matters which come up for discussion. I turn to the items which are the subject of the extra Winter Supplementaries amounting to £72 million. The first is for foot-and-mouth and the second investment grants. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham read out a very pertinent part of our Report, in which we said that we were shocked to discover that, having been asked only six weeks ago to approve a Supplementary £50 million for investment grants, which was deemed at that time to be 75 per cent. of the total, we were now asked to come forward with a further £39 million. The part of the story that I find utterly unconvincing is that we were told, in January, following a series of gross miscalculations on the part of the Department concerned with investment grants, that this figure would be the total and that the Department was capable for foretelling how many additional requests for payment will be brought forward from the special and the other areas in the remaining weeks of this financial year.
The Chief Secretary shakes his head as if to say that he has utter confidence in the Department concerned to assess accurately what will happen.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): A Minister should never shake his head because it is always misinterpreted. I was only sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who carries such weight and such responsibility as Chairman of the Estimates Committee, should have thought it right to refer in such terms to the Estimates that have been made.

Sir S. Summers: I see no reason why the Government should be touchy about the Estimates that they put forward. What I am saying is that they have come for-yard yet again, six weeks after bringing forward £50 million, which purported to be 75 per cent. of the total, with a further £39 million. They say that they are


quite sure that this will suffice for the rest of the year, and I say that it is quite impossible to gaze sufficiently accurately into the crystal to see what demands will come forward between now and 5th April.
If we are to be told that it is absolutely assured, that the Government have somehow issued some edict that further requests will not be accepted, that will make the situation quite different, but this is not mentioned in support of the additional £39 million which the Government have seen fit to bring forward.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Has the hon. Gentleman investigated the allegation that a very big proportion of investment grants are paid in to capital expenditure incurred on ships constructed abroad, not in the United Kingdom?

Sir S. Summers: It might be that had we had the opportunity to examine the Department concerned in respect of this £39 million we might have lit on some aspect of the subject such as has been referred to. We have not had the Department in front of us and have not been able to find out whether there are any skeletons in the cupboard, which seems to be the case. What we have noticed is that we are being asked to vote very large sums of money to take account of policy hitherto pursued by the Government to bring nearer the date when payment is made following the incurring of the obligation. When some piece of machinery is ordered, there is clearly a time lag between the order and the receipt of the investment grant from the Government.
It used to be 15 or 18 months. We are told that it was to come down to 12 months. We were assured by the Department only a few weeks ago, that its confident ambition was to bring it down to six months. Scarcely has the document been printed in which this view is expressed than we are told that this is not to take place and is deemed to be one of the great cuts that will create confidence among foreign bankers. There is to be the 12 months' lag behind the incurring of the obligation to buy some piece of machinery and the grant made towards it. No longer is there to be a "concertina" effect taking place. It only

goes to show how thoroughly bogus are a number of cuts about which the public have been given information and how at variance the Government now are with the policy that they have been pursuing only a few weeks ago. I repeat that we are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend, and I hope those who are increasingly concerned will play their part, however humbly, in curbing public expenditure on the part of this Government.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I was not intending to take part in this debate. When I saw the list of subjects, it struck me that this debate might take place on an esoteric and technical level, but when I saw the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who came first out of the Ballot, my suspicions were aroused. I must say, having heard the first two speeches from the other side, that all my suspicions have been confirmed. The hon. Member told us something about Civil Estimates, but he then went on to relate the fact that the Supplementary Estimates have been brought in because of some desire on the part of the Government to mislead both the people at home and those abroad whose business it is to add up the arithmetic of the British economy.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) has been raising points thoroughly worthy of the consideration of the House on the type of Supplementary Estimates there should be, whether there should be one emergency sum or not. This is a matter which should be considered by the House. What is wrong about the debate is trying to tie in that sort of point with the last few sentences in his speech and the last one in the speech of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). He is trying to say that the fact that Supplementary Estimates have been brought forward means that the Government's package deal does not represent any real cut in Government spending. That, as I understand it, is the burden of the point made by the Opposition.
The hon. Gentleman opposite knows the reality of the cuts made by the Government last week. Take the cuts announced in military expenditure.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot discuss the cuts that have been made. We are discussing what is in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Richard: I was not proposing to discuss details of the cuts but merely the reality as opposed to the precise items cut or not cut. I hope the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) will take the opportunity, if he is intervening in this debate, of emphasising again to his hon. Friends, to the country, and to people abroad that the cuts that have been made are real and substantial.
The other great omission in speeches from the other side was something that one always notices. Everyone is in favour of cutting public expenditure in the abstract. I know no better way of getting a cheer at a public meeting than by saying that, on the whole, the Government spend far too much money and that public expenditure should be cut. Everybody is in favour of cutting it in the abstract. If the hon. Gentlemen opposite were to get up and say how monstrous it is that the Government are spending so such money, how extravagant it is, it is the most extravagant Government we have had, no doubt he would get a cheer, but he cannot expect to get very much intellectual respect for that sort of argument. He must tell us not only that he is in favour of cutting public expenditure in the abstract, but in favour of cutting it specifically and say where he would make his economies. If he thinks the economies were not real economies, what economies would he like the Government to introduce?

Mr. Speaker: He will find difficulty in replying. The hon. Gentleman must confine his economies inside the Supplementary Estimate.

Sir S. Summers: The hon. Gentleman coupled my name with that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I moved an Amendment which would have the effect of deleting the charge for family allowances but he voted in the opposite way.

Mr. Richard: I am sure I did, and I hope I would always vote in the opposite way. The hon. Gentleman at least gives respectability to the argument he put forward at the end of his speech. He first spoke about the extravagance of

the Government in not cutting expenditure and in moving forward the Supplementary Estimates. I would ask if we are to have an official reply from the Conservative Party as to where, in the Supplementary Estimates, they would like the Government to make cuts. Where would they like us to save the money we are being so prodigal in spending? Unless we have the specific as well as the abstract, it does not seem that the arguments coming from the other side are impressive.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. John Page: It is fortunate and salutary that my hon. Friend has been able to arrange for this debate to take place on this side following the debate of yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) had taken the trouble to attend the debate yesterday—a debate attended by only one of his hon. Friends during the opening speeches—he would, at the beginning and the end of the speeches from our Front Bench, have had an exact answer to the question he rhetorically asks now. I would be out of order, Mr. Speaker, in repeating the cogent and evident answers which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday. The tragedy of this debate today and yesterday's debate is the acceptance of the inevitability of the growth of Government spending, which is universally accepted by all hon. Members opposite, including, I am disappointed to say, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who spoke yesterday. It was surprising and disappointing.
I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that these Supplementary Estimates are examples of the galloping increase in spendthrift housekeeping by the present Government. It will surprise some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but please those who normally sit below the Gangway, with the notable exception of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), that the way to reduce Government expenditure is to turn to "Marksism", and by "Marksism" I mean not Karl Marx but the late Lord Marks.
The late Lord Marks, three or four years ago, decided that, in order to make his organisation more efficient, procedures which used a lot of paper and


unnecessary statistics should be demolished. It is an example to the Economic Secretary, and I wish he would pay a visit to Baker Street, if he has not already done so, to the headquarters of Marks and Spencer, to see how one great concern was able to reduce the paperwork and other administrative costs in a way which produced the following result. Over the years since these changes were made, 26 million forms do not have to be filled in, making a saving of 120 tons of paper. The number of employees in the company was reduced by 20 per cent., prices were cut by 60 per cent. and profits were greatly increased. I believe that the same principles should and could be followed by Government Departments.
I turn to Class 1, Vote 8 for the Inland Revenue. I draw attention to a most important Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1966–67 dealing with the Vote in question. It refers to false claims to personal reliefs for Income Tax put in by immigrants living in this country. For many years, a number of us have been suspicious that the families for which allowances were being claimed might tend to be fictitious. A sample taken by the Inland Revenue, to its credit, started in April, 1966, shows that 55 per cent. of the claims for reliefs were fraudulent. This has resulted in a cost to the Inland Revenue of £5 million to £7 million a year and a total cost to date of between £25 and £30 million.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the whole of the Inland Revenue's expenditure and policy on this Supplementary Estimate. If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will see that that item in the Estimates is for overtime and pay increases at the headquarters and Revenue local offices and salaries at the Valuation Office. He must link his remarks to that.

Mr. Page: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I feel that some of the overtime may have been caused by the investigations which had to take place.
The Inland Revenue should be more economical in connection with a letter which came into my hands yesterday referring to the work of the Inland Revenue at Bootle. I will send the letter to the Treasury. A form was received by a

gentleman in connection with an allowance for the further education of his son. Two similar requests were received from other Departments. I ask the Chief Secretary to see whether there might be better co-ordination between those investigating these allowances.
I turn to Class IV, Vote 11, headed
Board of Trade (Promotion of Trade, Exports, etc.) … 
There is much criticism in business and commerce of the Personal Exports Scheme. A lot of forms have to be filled in by potential exporters which they find inconvenient. Since we are discussing £9 million in a Supplementary Estimate for the encouragement of exports, I ask whether this aspect could be investigated. I can say from personal knowledge that the Personal Exports Scheme is more complicated than any I have ever encountered, and that is the view, I believe, of many businessmen who try to encourage personal exports.
I ask the Chief Secretary to get in touch with his opposite number at the Board of Trade to see whether the import and export of precious stones and jewellery, especially for re-setting, could be simplified, because otherwise some of the money which is being spent will be wasted.
I turn to Class V, Vote 4, concerning agricultural grants and subsidies. I wish to draw attention to what I consider to be a gross extravagance on the part of the Ministry of Agriculture, carried out—and this is most sad—in the name of good housekeeping in spending the taxpayers' money. Much too much checking is carried out of schemes which are put to the Ministry of Agriculture under the heading of grants and subsidies. The one which I would mention is the grant for piped water to allotments.
A year or two ago, the Chief Engineer of the Borough of Harrow, a man of impeccable efficiency in his profession, produced a scheme for piped water to allotments in Harrow which would be grant-bearing at the rate of £160—not a great sum in the context of the Ministry of Agriculture or of the budget of the Borough of Harrow, which runs into many millions of £s, administered most ably by efficient officers. To check the grant-bearing nature of the £160, two specialists were sent from the


Ministry of Agriculture at Guildford—an engineer and, I believe, a surveyor—to check that the work was properly coordinated and would be properly carried out.
It is tragic to think that something which, in commerce, could have been settled by one letter or even by a telephone call should be expensively checked and counter-checked by a Government Department. It could be said, and it was at the time, that this action safeguarded the spending of public money. I believe that these visits may unnecessarily have cost the taxpayer and ratepayer £40, £50 or £60 and that these experts' time would have been better spent in cogitating whether grants for piped water to allotments in Harrow were justified on any grounds, which may well be doubtful.
I have given some specific examples. I should be grateful if the Chief Secretary would give his attention to the points which I have mentioned—the one concerning agriculture is rather ancient history, but the procedure still exists—to see whether Government spending could be restricted and whether valuable manpower, equipment and facilities in the Government service could be better used.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I hope that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I thought that his speech would have been far better made yesterday than today, because we are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates. For many years, I had the honour of serving on Sub-Committee G, of which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) was a very effective and courteous Chairman. All who served on his Sub-Committee enjoyed his chairmanship. As a onetime member of the Estimates Committee, I was always impressed by the objectivity which its members brought to it, completely divorced from their political parties. That applies to the hon. Gentleman and equally to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).
When discussing Supplementary Estimates, I am reminded that the hon. Member for Aylesbury fought for many years to have the Winter Estimates split. He made a great case for it, and he was successful. All of us on the Estimates Committee thought that it was a tre

mendous achievement on the part of the hon. Gentleman. However, by the time that he had finished speaking today, he had almost convinced me that it was a bad idea. Having split them, we now get the Winter Estimates followed closely by the Spring Estimates, without having time to discuss them.

Sir S. Summers: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the implication of what I said. Winter Supplementaries were presented in November and went through the proper scrutiny. What I was complaining about was the subsequent presentation of bogus Winter Supplementaries which there is no time to examine.

Mr. Bence: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means when he talks about "bogus" Winter Estimates. About six or seven years ago, we had one set of Estimates presented to us in November, and the hon. Gentleman succeeded in convincing the Government of the day that it would be better to have some Estimates in the winter, and some more in the spring. When we got Supplementary Estimates in the spring, of course, we had no time to discuss them. Time and time again, we have had Supplementary Estimates coming forward in January, and have not had time to discuss them thoroughly.
Some point has been made about the growth of Government expenditure. I would point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that a growth in turnover in monetary terms as a whole cannot run parallel with the Government's expenditure remaining static. That is asking for the impossible. If there is a general growth resulting in higher salaries and prices, Government expenditure must go along with it. It would be impossible to cut Government expenditure while expenditure elsewhere was expanding. To suggest that the salaries of teachers, civil servants and others should stand still while the general level of incomes and distribution of profits is rising would be quite unreasonable.

Mr. Farr: Surely no one would expect to have a complete standstill, but is there any reason why more intelligent estimates should not be made of the expected increase in expenditure in any year?

Mr. Bence: One of the reasons why there has been such controversy in the


Estimates Committee about Supplementary Estimates is that the complaint has always been, "Why do we get these heavy Supplementary Estimates? Why cannot the Departments estimate more accurately?" That has been the stock question, year after year. It is not a new phenomenon. It has been raised time and time again, and it should be on the record that this has been the complaint of Sub-Committee G ever since it was set up. Year after year it has drawn attention to the failure of the Departments of State to make correct estimates.
One would imagine that the only people who make bad estimates are Government departments. However, anyone who works in industry knows that there is a great deal of false projection into the future. I could mention the names of many engineering companies which have made bad mistakes, and got themselves into serious difficulties. The Departments of State are no worse. The problem is that the penalties are different. Mistakes in commerce and industry have to be paid for by the people in them. Serious mistakes in a Department of State are paid for by the taxpayer.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: The hon. Gentleman must be aware that we are not asking for a standstill in the Estimates. The Prime Minister pointed out that his Civil Estimates have gone up 45 per cent. in the last three years, which is more than any inflationary tendency. We are saying that the Winter Supplementaries have gone up six times since 1964.

Mr. Bence: The Supplementary Estimates will increase in ratio to the general rise in Departmental expenditure over a period of years, of course. If one allows a percentage error, and there is a percentage increase in the projection, the percentage of error in forecasting will mean an increased sum to supplement the original Estimate. If the projection in 1967–68 is four times as much as it was in 1963–64, the margin of error is also expanded.
The increase in the Supplementary Estimates is not something which has arisen for the first time in the financial year 1967–68. It has always occurred. In every debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, there is always the complaint that the figure is the highest ever and must

stop. That has been said since 1951. Every year, Opposition hon. Members say that it is too much, that it is the highest Supplementary ever, and a Minister gives his reasons why it cannot be stopped. Still it goes marching on and on.
If it is to be stopped, everyone in the country must be asked to end seeking higher prices for their products, higher wages for their work and higher fees for their professional services. Only in that way shall we put an end to higher Supplementary Estimates and increased Government expenditure.
Hon. Members opposite object to any form of prices and wages freeze. If we start freezing the prices of every product in the country, we shall choke up investment. How many hon. Members opposite would invest in a project if there was no likelihood of a price increase in the next ten years? Anyone investing in a project expects to make increasing profits. Anyone manufacturing a motor-car today expects to be making more from a similar model in five years' time.

Mr. John Biffen: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the price of colour television will be higher ten years years from now?

Mr. Bence: The hon. Gentleman has chosen one highly specialised product. The investment in colour television will be measured partly by the economic price which can be charged for it and partly by the market for it. The two will be matched. If I were investing in colour television those are the two features which I would consider. The higher the market in which it would go, the lower the price for the product I would provide. These are the sort of decisions that one makes in marketing a product.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): There is nothing about colour television in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry. I was led away by the hon. Member for Aylesbury. I rose only to point out that the hon. Member for Aylesbury, as chairman of Sub-Committee G when I served under his chairmanship, always made this plea about these Supplementary Estimates. This is not something which has just happened in the Supplementary Estimates whilst there has been a Labour Government. He has made this plea for years


under previous Administrations. I agree with him. I think he is right to do it. This is what Parliament is for and he is right to do it. However, he did not do it when he was on this side. We did it. That is fair enough, because that is what the Opposition are for. I want to put on record that the hon. Member for Aylesbury has always made the plea against the Executive that there is not sufficient control, that there is not sufficient accuracy in forecasting, and this is why we have these Supplementary Estimates.
I am not on the Estimates Committee now, but, like him, I naturally regret that we have these heavy increases in the supplement to the current expenditure. I think that in industry, commerce and departments of State, the time has come for us all to think again about trying to solve our particular economic problem, not by putting up the price of our product or asking for more money, but rather by seeking for higher efficiency so that we do not have to ask for more money. We can do this merely by higher efficiency.

4.42 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), of whom I am very fond—he is one of my best friends in the House—is rather like the Government's expenditure. When he gets up to make a speech it rolls on and on—[Interruption.] I do not mind, because I have not got the money to spend.
These Supplementary Estimates today unfortunately show just the tip of the iceberg. I am terrified at the thinking displayed by the hon. Getleman in his speech and that of the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard). They say that, irrespective of the economy of the nation, the Government's total expenditure will go, on rising and one cannot stop it.
What has happened over the last three years? The Prime Minister apparently took pride in the fact that our expenditure on Civil Estimates has gone up by 45 per cent. and production has gone up by 1 per cent. It is obvious that this is creating an enormous burden for the public.

Sir S. Summers: Has my hon. Friend not forgotten that after the cuts public expenditure will be higher than before?

Sir D. Glover: After the most bitter Cabinet wrangle, with crocodile tears

pouring down Downing Street in torrents, the Prime Minister comes to the House and tells us that, after going through the thing with a mangle, they are to reduce expenditure by £300 million, and on the same day they publish Supplementary Estimates of £351 million. The hon. Member for Barons Court who says that these cuts are not real cuts is not taking into account——

Mr. Richard: I am reluctant to confuse the hon. Gentleman with what I said. I was saying not that they were not real cuts, but that they were real cuts, and I was hoping to hear from the other side confirmation that they accepted, as we did, that the cuts that the Government announced last week were real, difficult and painful cuts in Government expenditure.

Sir D. Glover: I will concede this much to the hon. Member. Putting a charge on prescriptions is not a cut, because it will increase Revenue, but delaying the school leaving age is a cut. The Prime Minister has said that he will not increase the Civil Service. That is riot a cut. The actual cost will be the same in 1968 as in 1967.
The crisis that the Government are trying to deal with was created on our expenditure in 1966–67, not our projected expenditure in 1968–69. Here we have a prime example of Government profligation. With this enormous Government expenditure we have now got Supplementary Estimates, the largest we have ever had, of £351 million at a time when the Government's whole object, and that of every spending Minister, during the last 12 months ought to have been to keep within the Estimates that had been voted by Parliament. Instead they have shown again that they are so weak and queasy, so involved with their party squabbles, that they have not got the time to look after their Departments and have allowed over-expenditure on the already grossly inflated Civil Estimates of £351 million, which is jolly nearly 10 per cent.
Is it surprising, when the Government keep doing these things, that there is lack of confidence in this country overseas and lack of confidence in the Government's ability to govern at home? It is obvious that the Government have not got control of the governmental machine. It has been shown in every debate. It


was shown yesterday by the hon. Gentleman who was talking about expenditure and saying that the Civil Service would automatically increase. This is just the sort of thinking that creates Supplementary Estimates of £351 million.
Everything is sacrosanct now. I am not on the Estimates Committee, but I am on a Public Accounts Committee. I do not know whether it is a promotion, relegation, or a sideways move. However, I remember some years ago talking to the accounting officer of one of the not very large spending Departments. I said, "How many have you got in your O. & M. division?". He said, "One hundred and seventy-seven". I said. "Can you tell the Committee how many people these 177 have saved?", because if they had not saved 177 they must be a charge on the Department. I should like to know how many O. & M. divisions in the Departments are themselves sacred cows, it is like all machines. Unless you are perpetually pulling them out of their boxes and dusting them down and having a look at them, the most efficient pieces of mechanism get corroded with rust. I believe that in a lot of Government Departments the pattern has gone on in the same format in that a great many of the things originally created to make for greater efficiency are now an increased burden. I think that there are a lot of these things which should be looked into.
I do not want to detain the House. My main theme is that until the Government can so control the financial affairs of the nation that this sort of Supplementary Estimate is not brought in front of the House and can show that they have in fact got a grip on their expenditure and are not allowing Government expenditure to rise faster than the gross national product—they have not show's any real evidence of this so far with their cuts—there will be no increase in confidence in the Government and, much more tragically, there will be no increase of confidence in the nation, and that means we will all suffer. Therefore, the sooner the Government resign the better for Britain.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke)

for initiating this debate, because all of us are worried about the defeatism in the country which accepts the growing inevitability of Government expenditure.
Government expenditure between 1862 and 1869 went up by £3 million. The size of that Government expenditure exactly one hundred years ago was revenue £69 million, expenditure £71 million. In 1868, exactly a hundred years ago, the Conservative Government of the day were defeated because expenditure had risen by £3 million. They were defeated because the back benchers did not like Income Tax going up by 2d. in the £.
That underlines a little the kind of problem that we are up against today. We are discussing Supplementary Estimates of £351 million. This is an example of the complacency of the country. Nobody cares about the pennies. Everyone assumes that the pounds will take care of themselves. I welcome the debate, because I think that Parliament should pay much more attention than it does to these Estimates. We spend far too much time on legislation. and not nearly enough on dealing with Estimates such as these.
In 1939, the total Budget, revenue and expenditure, was £951 million. Today we are discussing Supplementary Estimates amounting to about one-third of the 1939 Budget, which was introduced just before we fought the greatest war in our history.
The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) threw out a challenge. He said that we on this side of the House talk about making economies in Government expenditure, but we never say how we will make the cuts. The Estimates ask for a sum of £2,340,000, to enable overtime payments to be made to people employed in the Inland Revenue. Is this because of the overtime worked on administering the Selective Employment Tax and Corporation Tax? Is this part of the reform of taxation which the Government have brought in? Their tax reforms have led to more complicated taxation, and the need for people in the Inland Revenue to work more overtime. I am sure that they are considerably overworked, and the Chief Secretary knows this.
What proposals could be put forward to alleviate their burden? I put forward a simple proposal. and one that I have


made before in the House. Why not have more indirect taxation, and move away from direct taxation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss taxation on this Bill.

Mr. Ridsdale: I know that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I am concerned about relieving the burden of work which is now placed on people in the Inland Revenue Department.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: May be, but still we are not concerned with taxation in this debate. We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Ridsdale: I come now to Class IV, Vote 13 which deals with investment grants. This shows that a figure of £89 million was given and then withdrawn. This is part of the cut that never was.
Class VI, Vote 7 calls for an additional £22 million. I am sure that this would n at have been necessary if the Government had been able to hurry their reform of local government, and had introduced regional government, which would have given us better control over local government expenditure than we have today.
Class IX, Vote 2 deals with the supply of furniture and equipment. The increase here is £400,000. No doubt this equipment is required for the extra 24,000 permanent, and 30,000 temporary civil servants. Extra money is also required for increased electricity, gas, and water charges. The figure here is £1,050,000, a greater increase than expected. I should like the Chief Secretary to explain this, and tell us which Government Departments are being wasteful with their electricity.
Finally, I come to Class XI, Vote 1 which deals with grants for the B.B.C.'s Home Services. The grant for general purposes shows an increase of £5,950,000. We are told:
The additional amount required is due to increases in licence issues following new measures to combat licence evasion.
I would like a better explanation than we have so far had about this. This seems an enormous sum to pay for the collection of licence fees. Is not there a simpler way of dealing with this?
I do not want to go on for too long, though I should like more time in which

to go into the detail of these Estimates. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). We are alarmed at the growth of these Supplementary Estimates, which are now six times what they were in 1964. If this is allowed to continue, international confidence in this country, which is now declining, will decline even faster. I hope that we shall soon have in power a Government who are more concerned about expenditure than is the case at the moment.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for raising this immensely important subject and giving us an opportunity to discuss it.
It is ironic that only a handful of hon. Members are present in the Chamber today to discuss an extra expenditure of £351 million, when last week, when we were discussing an alleged saving of £300 million, the House was packed and there was great applause from the benches opposite for the Prime Minister's wonderful economies. It is ironic that discrepancies of the kind disclosed in these Estimates can be considered by a handful of hon. Members, with apparently little interest among most hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), and one or two others on the benches opposite, seemed to say that these Estimates were more or less what one should expect, because no one can stop expenditure increasing annually. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, we on these benches contest that. We do not accept this inevitable rise in prices and wages, even though hon. Gentlemen opposite seem more or less conditioned to them.
What we are asking for is not a cessation of the annual increase in expenditure—we do not mind the increase if we get value for it—but a more intelligent estimate of expenditure for the fiscal year, so that the Government do not repeatedly have to come to the House at this time of the year for approval for these ever-increasing sums of money.
If someone were running a business and his accountant handled things in this


way, he would have to go. No efficient business can be run on this kind of basis. To run the country satisfactorily, many of the methods employed in an efficient business must be employed in Government management. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East, who I am afraid is not present now, said that it had always been so and that there were always regular annual increases in the Supplementary Estimates, but we were told in 1964 and 1966 that this Government would change all that, would bring in modern methods of running the country, would not follow the old pattern of a hazardous guess hundreds of millions of £s out, but would brush things up and make them more efficient. The only result is the steady increase in the inaccuracy of the original Estimates.
Two or three particular points in these Estimates strike me as particularly significant. First, the total of about £352 million extra is a vast sum, working out at £7 per person or £25 per family or 10s. extra tax per family per week. It is a tremendous sum and it is absolutely appalling that the original Estimates could be out to this extent. One studies the documents from the Vote Office to try to break it down as it is broken down in column 883 of yesterday's HANSARD, and one or two things are immediately striking.
First is the extra expenditure for the Commonwealth of £8,348,000; one sees
straight away that special extra aid to Zambia accounts for nearly £7 million. If, in the Prime Minister's own words, this country is to pay its way in the world, we cannot afford to pursue these hallucinatory practices against Rhodesia. This added payment to Zambia of £7 million is related to the ridiculous imposition of sanctions on Rhodesia. Whether we like it or not, we cannot afford to pursue such will-of-the-wisp policies with such disastrous results. Again referring to the comparison with a company which is efficiently run, if such a company cannot pay its way, it goes bankrupt and the same applies to a country. Unless it is efficiently run, as we have seen with devaluation, it will go bankrupt.
One then turns in this list to the Transport Board item of another £30 million to be spent on nationalised transport, on supporting British Railways and the London Transport Board. Nearly all

that sum—£28,800,000—is an additional subsidy to British Railways, which will suck the taxpayer to the extent, it is estimated, of about £155 million this financial year alone—an ever-increasing sum. That is nearly £3 million a week, a record level. One would think that a Government anxious to economise, regardless of party doctrines, would do something about British Railways to make it more economical instead of saddling the country with a vast new Transport Bill which will cost another £30 million or £40 million. What a way to handle things.
The only Estimate which can definitely be said to be entirely unexpected is, of course, the tragic one for agriculture, almost entirely due to the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, totalling an extra £32 million. No one could have foreseen that tragedy, and I am sure that our policy, which has put up the cost of recompensing farmers for the slaughtered animals, is absolutely right and should be continued. But there are possibly other decreases in the calculated amounts in the agricultural Estimates which have not yet come to light or been shown. For some time, for instance, the deficiency or support payments for beef and pork have been running at nil, far lower than was originally estimated, and I can trace no indication in this document of an allowance or decrease in that respect.
I do not want to go into microscopic detail on these Estimates, because so few hon. Members are present and many other subjects are due for debate. I am only sorry that we have not had a day or two days on this very important addition to our tax bill. I would have liked to go into every line and page of the Estimates, as would many of my colleagues, to search into these reasons and try to ensure that there is not such a gross inaccuracy in other years.
One example which shows up the chaos of the Government planners is the Supplementary Estimate for extra expenditure on overseas works and buildings—many millions of £s—in areas which, as announcel only last week, we are leaving at a very early date. The anomaly strikes one forcibly. At the same time as the announcement of a policy of scuttle from east of Suez, the Persian Gulf, Singapore and Malaysia, we are spending millions more than we


expected on permanent buildings to house our troops who will apparently no longer be there.
Could not this computer-minded Government get a little more efficient and get their books in better order? The people of this country were promised, in 1964 and 1966, better and modern Government in this technological age and we do not expect these blundering errors to continue in future years.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. William Small: I recognise the philosophy of the economic man, the statistician, who can allow nothing for flexibility, yet in terms of representative Government, if some aspect of national life merits a Supplementary Estimate, there are hon. Gentlemen in this House who will criticise it by way of Questions and Motions. I would admit a great claim for increased expenditure on the hospital services, for instance, it the hospitals were extended to provide for one of the new kidney machines to restore health, yet no one can foresee these things. If there were a rise in crime, most hon. Members on both sides would rightly demand extra expenditure for an efficient police force.
Percentage-wise, the Supplementary Estimates on this occasion are not so graphically exhaustive as the party opposite suggest in their charges of Government extravagance.
Industrialists demand selective and expert knowledge of opportunities for exports. It is vital that we make this information available, but we must pay for it. Abroad there are the turnover tax, the added value tax and various other impositions, and our exporters should be fully informed about them so that they can compete in tendering. Whatever services are provided, they must be pa id for from the public purse.
In many spheres we are being overshadowed by our competitors, who are leapfrogging us because our techniques are not adequate. However, industrialists and others are doing their best, spurred on by the Government, to compete with foreign companies and the 22 million people who are employed in this country, 8 million of them with productive skills, are helping to keep us in the forefront in the export sphere. We must continue to set up training establishments in the

engineering, jute, agriculture and other industries—but we must pay for these things to be done. If our economic health is to be sustained, we must be prepared to pay to sustain it. Only in that way will we be able to pay our way. I fear that too much special pleading goes on, particularly on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, at a time when we must be selective but be prepared to invest in training and other schemes.

5.12 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Scotstoun (Mr. Small) is absolutely right in saying that there is nothing in these Estimates which calls for the sort of anxiety which has been expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite.
It may be convenient if I deal with the main issues that have been raised—that is, the total size of the Estimates, the question of timing, the accuracy of forecasting and, in particular, the question of the investment grants. There have been a number of other detailed items to which I have been asked to draw the attention of my right hon. Friends, and I will certainly do that. But on the main topic, which relates to the general size of the Estimates, I imagine that the House would rather that I dealt with that than a host of detailed items.
We are dealing with Estimates for supply, something different from public expenditure. Time and again hon. Gentlemen opposite have mentioned that the difference between their point of view and ours is that they simply do not accept what they say is apparently accepted by us—the inevitability of the growth of public expenditure. I have no knowledge of what is inside the minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do have knowledge of what happened to public expenditure while they were in power.
To put the matter in its true perspective, I remind the House of the information which I gave in answer to a Question a short time ago about the rise in public expenditure, in constant terms, in the period since 1960–61. For the first five years the average increase in expenditure was a little over 4½ per cent. per annum, and it went up each year, the first year by 4 per cent., the second by 7½ per cent., the third by 1 per cent., the


fourth by 5½ per cent. and the fifth by 5 per cent.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they have certain views about this, but the practice of it is exactly as I have described it over that period; a rise of something over 4½ per cent. per annum. We have not been in office for that period and it is difficult to refer to the earlier years of Labour administration, because the early years of any new Government are conditioned, in terms of public expenditure, by what their predecessors planned and arranged. I should be astonished, however, if our figures for a similar period do not turn out to correspond fairly closely with the same rate of growth to which I have referred. The indications are already to that effect.
Thus, I do not accept that there is this clear distinction—on the one hand the Opposition saying, "We do not ever believe in the growth of public expenditure", and, on the other hand, the Government saying, "This rise is inevitable". Hon. Gentlemen opposite have drawn attention to the fact that, in sharp distinction from us, they do not believe in this growth while, they say, the Government seem committed to the inevitability of increased public expenditure.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Mr. Gresham Cooke rose——

Mr. Diamond: I shall be referring fully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. If, at the end of my remarks, he does not consider that I have answered his questions, I will give way. I am grateful for the remarks he made because certain matters need explaining, and that is what I intend to do. I am as anxious as he is to ensure that there should be no misunderstanding, which can easily arise, from a superficial glance at the figures, about the attitude of the Government vis-à-vis the House and the Estimates Committee, and that there should be no misunderstanding abroad. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need for confidence abroad.
I will, therefore, concentrate at the outset on the size of the Estimates and see how they compare and what proportion they represent. I will try to break them down a little. We are dealing with £351 million, which is unquestionably a large figure. It equals about 3·7 per cent. of

the total supply expenditure. Of this figure, £120 million represents two quite special amounts; one, the foot-and-mouth disease compensation figure of £30 million—which nobody has criticised or suggested could have been foreseen—and the other, the £90 million for investment grants.
The first point to realise about investment grants is that, for the first time, they are coming under the control and scrutiny of this House, something which never happened before because previously they were allowances set off against one's tax payments, and nothing was seen of them in Parliament—except when we agreed the total figure at Budget time. Nothing else could control the flow of money to those who applied for payments of this sort.
At the start of the year, it was the intention of the Government to make a three quarters payment in respect of investment grants. As the year advanced the Board of Trade found that it could cope with the flow of demand. It also found that it could accelerate the payment which it wanted to do to encourage more firms to invest. Thus, it was increased to four quarters and, later in the year, improved again to five quarters. The main reason for the large increase as compared with the original position was the improvement from three to five quarters' payments.
One can control payments, but one cannot control the speed with which firms apply for them; and the variety and speed of demand is astonishing. Some firms are still applying for expenditure incurred right at the start of the scheme. Others are applying immediately they are entitled to apply. One begins with a new scheme like this and finds that it is impossible to estimate with accuracy the speed with which individual firms will make application. This is relevant to the criticism which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) made in such forceful terms. In other words, one cannot control the speed of application, but one gets used to it so that in time, and as the scheme develops, one can be more certain of the facts.
When the November Supplementary Estimates were brought forward they were based on the 75 per cent. formula. The hon. Member for Aylesbury knows better than anyone else—because he is the most


well-informed, well-respected, authoritative Chairman of the Estimates Committee—that this 75 per cent. formula is a well-accepted formula for dealing with uncertainties of this kind. But as we move forward from November, and the end of the period is the end of March, no one can any longer claim that uncertainty.
I am quite sure that if in January one had put forward a 75 per cent. formula, the first response would be, "Could you not do better than that and have a shot at 100 per cent.?". The hon. Member was critical on this point and used most extravagant language, but it has never been the case yet that a single Supplementary Estimate after November has been put forward on the 75 per cent. basis. It has always been on the 100 per cent. basis.
The criticism which the hon. Member made about "someone who did not know the first thing about it" being entitled to ask for 100 per cent. is wholly misplaced. I hope that I have satisfied him that we were carrying out a practice acceptable to his Committee and were going on the principle, on which I and my predecessor have gone, of giving the best information to this House at the earliest possible time.

Sir S. Summers: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has grasped the kernel of my complaint. I am not complaining that when in November the fig ire of £150 million was put forward 75 per cent. was the best estimate. What we complain about is that without adequate time to study the next figure, £39 mi lion, it was not only put forward sooner so as to permit us to examine it, but it is claimed to be accurate for the succeeding two months. That is a claim I cannot think the Government are entitled to make.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member made more than one complaint. I was dealing with his first complaint and I was coming to the second one about not leaving this House and his Committee adequate time to study the matter before having to pass it under the Consolidated Fund procedure. I am sorry to have to refresh his memory, but the first complaint was about the comparison between the 75 per cent. and the 100 per cent. and the unlikelihood that anyone would be able to claim 75 per cent. in November and yet

100 per cent. in January. The increase, as the hon. Member recognises is nothing like £39 million. Half of it is the switching from 75 per cent. to 100 per cent., and £20 million is not such an enormous figure. It is large in relation to a £75 million float which is all I have to play with. I shall come to the very interesting proposal he made about the Civil Contingencies Fund. I hope I have explained why the investment grant figures appeared as they did and why I am entitled, as I am sure the whole House recognises, to regard that as a separate and special item unrelated to the normal situation of increases in Estimates known as Supplementary Estimates.
To return to the point I was making about the total size of the Supplementary Estimates, if one takes of the £120 million I have referred to, the £90 million for investment grants and £30 million for foot-and-mouth disease, the figure we are concerned with is 2·4 per cent. of the total supply. In 1965 that figure was 2·7 per cent. In 1966 it was 2·5 per cent. As this year it is 2·4 per cent. I think I am entitled to say that there is no need for the kind of anxiety that has been expressed in so many, speeches.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Because the total supply has gone up enormously in the last three years, although the percentage may be the same, the total increase is very much more.

Mr. Diamond: I have dealt with the question of total supply. I am glad the hon. Member repeated it, because his leader was in some doubt whether this figure was in the mind of the hon. Member. The best expression of the increase in total supply is not money alone because supply here is to central government and one must bring in local government and all the relevant matters contained in the phrase, "Public expenditure". I have explained the increase in public expenditure which went on under the hon. Member's Government and which had his support and his vote on every occasion when it was increased.
That deals with the question of the total size. The next question I have to deal with is that of inaccuracy of estimating which has been alleged. It has been compared with the much better estimating which, it is said, goes on in


private industry. I was interested in this, because I am not wholly inexperienced in this field. I am a great deal more experienced in terms of years in that than in my present office, which I have occupied for less than four years.
I shall give the run of figures in terms of the Estimates. I have taken the last 10 years, which I hope the hon. Member will regard as a reasonable run of figures. I can give the detailed figures if he likes. The average difference between the Estimate and the outturn—the extent to which the estimate was inaccurate—is plus 0·3 per cent., that is to say, the outturn came to a mere 0·3 per cent. more. For every £100 estimated 0·3 per cent.—6s.—was wrong. The hon. Member alleged that that compared unfavourably with private industry. I practised in private industry for many years. I know of no firm which has found it possible to estimate with that degree of accuracy— none whatever. Perhaps I have too limited an experience; I have been a chartered accountant for only 40-odd years.

Mr. Farr: While, of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's figures as to the accuracy without hesitation, I should be grateful if he could let me have details for the individual years. I believe he gave an average figure. My attempt at comparing private industry with the performance of the Government was to say that a private individual firm or company would have been bankrupt if it had carried on in this manner.

Mr. Diamond: There are any number of hon. Members present who have most responsible positions in private industry. If they can say from their own knowledge that firms with which they are concerned over the last 10 years calculated the total of their outgoings with the same degree of accuracy, I invite them to do so—silence.

Mr. John Page: I do not want to enter into an argument in which I am sure I would be brilliantly surpassed by the Chief Secretary, but he has been talking about the total of outgoings. When estimating in industry, the total of one's outgoings is not at all the most difficult thing to estimate. What is difficult to estimate is what one's sales will be. It is much easier to know what overheads will be, except things like rates. There

is a point in this which concerns outgoings, not turnover.

Mr. Diamond: It may be one or the other, but certainly a firm which did not estimate its outgoings would be bankrupt in no time. Civil servants, who have enormous experience in this field, and clearly this is to their credit, perform their duties with enormous care under every succeeding Government. They have managed to produce estimates, although we are running at figures of something like £10,000 million, of 0·3 per cent. accuracy. If the hon. Member wishes to have the run in the last few years, starting from 1960–61, they were plus 3·5 per cent., plus 1·5 per cent., minus 2·3 per cent., minus 1·1 per cent., then, with a change of Government. plus 0·1 per cent. and plus 0·4 per cent. I make no point that it has been ten times more accurate during our stewardship than it was under our predecessors, although I repeat that the whole of the credit is due to the civil servants, who serve both major parties with equal loyalty and diligence.

Sir S. Summers: Are we to take it that this includes all Supplementaries, including the original Estimates, and therefore includes the second and third thoughts in the tenth and eleventh months?

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am comparing Estimates with outturn. As he well knows, "out-turn" means at the very end of the year after including all Supplementary Estimates and, indeed, revised Supplementary Estimates.
Now that I have dealt with the question of the total size and whether these Estimates were reasonably accurate, I return to the main point made by the hon. Gentleman in his most interesting opening speech on the question of the timing. It is important that we should get this right. Inevitably I shall become a little technical now, but I know of no technicality which I regard as more important than that the House should have all the information it needs, and as early as possible, in the matter of the supply of money, which is one of the fundamental rights of the House. The House grants certain privileges to the Executive to spend the money on its behalf, but the


House, and only the House, has the right to raise the money. This is fundamentally our concept of democracy.
The first question is: why did we put in these revised Estimates? We are no longer on the question of size. I have disposed of that question. The question now is: it being known that these Estimates were exceeded, should we have put them in on 16th January, the first day the House met after the Christmas Recess? I know of no better day on which to inform the House of expenditure of this kind than the first day. I know of no other basis on which to approach the topic.
Of course it was a most inconvenient day. Of course I was consulted. Of course I consulted, or advised, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Of course I knew that he was making his speech, and this was going on at the same time. Of course I knew that there might be superficially an awkwardness or embarrassment about the two things happening at the same time. What did the hon. Gentleman want me to do—sit on these Estimates and not tell the House? I thought that it was my duty to advise the House immediately. That is the end of the matter. Of course it was my duty to do that.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury, who is Chairman of the Estimates Committee, says, "But by doing that you place us, the Estimates Committee, in an awkward situation. We then do not have sufficient time to examine the Estimates". I understand that, and would want to meet it. As the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not the first time that we have been
faced with this problem. An exactly similar problem arose earlier on. In February 1957, we had exactly the same problem of a revised increased supplementary. That situation was exactly on all fours with this. That Supply was voted fourteen days after being notified to the House. This Supply was put forward on 16th January. Fourteen days after the 16th brings us to the 30th. M' watch tells me that it is the 30th today when we are debating the matter. This is exactly on all fours with the 1957 situation. We are giving the House exactly the same amount of time that it was given by our predecessors in February, 1957.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury says that that is still not enough time. I agree. This is why I am coming to the most interesting proposal the hon. Gentleman made. He said—he wagged a warning finger whilst he said this—"If the Government, or the Treasury"—I forget which he said—"come back to us and say that the answer is to increase the Civil Contingencies Fund. I would not agree".
The Government know the views of the Estimates Committee with regard to the Civil Contingencies Fund. I served on the Estimates Committee many years ago. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this matter was settled a few years ago, namely, in 1955. The Fund was settled at £75 million. I am prepared to do whatever the House instructs me to do. I am the servant of the House, handling its money. This is not an unusual position for me to be in, in view of my background. I am prepared to do whatever the House wants me to do.
However, the House must be aware of the facts. The fact is that we are dealing with £10,000 million of expenditure. The Civil Contingencies Fund—my float —is £75 million, two days' float. Does the hon. Gentleman allow his petty cashier, never mind anybody with real responsibility, as little as two days' float? I and those who serve me have to calculate, on the basis of moneys coming in and going out. We cannot stop payments. There would be a fuss if the Government stopped paying. I have to calculate within an accuracy of two days, not knowing what income will come in, but knowing that at the end of the year there is little coming in and very little room for manœuvre. I am, therefore, compelled, if I am not going to fall short in my payments, to leave as little as possible to the Civil Contingencies Fund, because it is only £75 million.
The hon. Gentleman must realise the position that he asks the Government to take up if we were to accept his first proposal or the alternative one, which is an interesting one and one which I would want to examine, although I see difficulties about it straightaway, of having a separate Contingencies Fund for Emergency Contingencies as opposed to normal contingencies. I would certainly want to examine that. I want the hon. Gentleman to realise, however, that in


1955 when this figure was fixed it was a figure of 2 per cent. It was a float of 2 per cent. of the total. Mine is a float of ¾per cent. of the total. The float then would amount to £200 million now, not £75 million. That would be a very different figure, indeed. If the hon. Gentleman is merely saying that he was right in 1955 but wants to move with the times, £75 million would become a Civil Contingency Fund of £200 million.
These are important issues. They are not party issues. They are important issues relating to the problem of money management of the Fund which the House puts at the disposal of the Government and over which I, as Chief Secretary, have certain responsibilities.
Therefore, in terms of time of course these problems arose—the problem of coinciding with a most thoughtful speech forecasting future public expenditure by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the problem of not giving the Estimates Committee the time we would have wished to have given it to examine the Estimates fully. However, the overriding principle which I have adopted throughout is—when in doubt give the House the whole of the information as soon as possible. We have done that. I hope that I have satisfied the House that we have acted reasonably.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would it help it in future the Treasury were to publish these figures in the Recess so that at least the Clerks and those on the Estimates Committee could be preparing the ground?

Mr. Diamond: That technically would be publishing to the House—I recognise that—but it would not give the information to the House in the real sense in which we believe that it should be done.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. lain Macleod: With his usual calm courtesy, the Chief Secretary has told us that, in his view, the enormous sum we are considering is unavoidable and, in any case, unexceptionable. I hope briefly to show that I do not accept that attitude.
The total of revised and Supplementary Estimates for 1967–68 which have been presented to date is no less than £462·5

million. Having dealt with about £111 million, we have today to consider £351·7 million. The Chief Secretary will agree that it is absolutely right that we should discuss the matter, and we are therefore indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) for raising it, and particularly to such hon. Members as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers), who gave us the benefit of his special experience and made some most important suggestions.
The sum involved is a record figure. Some of it is unavoidable, the most obvious case being the large payments that had to be made to carry out the policy of slaughter to deal with foot-and-mouth disease, which both sides of the House believe to be correct. Nor is it in dispute—and here I take up what the Chief Secretary and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said—that over the years, decades and centuries there is a steady and inexorable rise in public expenditure. The mere lifting of salaries as time passes would account for that over the years. In addition, it is not possible when one deals with sums now running into tens of thousands of millions of pounds to expect precision, and it would be foolish to call for it.
I am more than prepared, as are my hon. Friends, to make every conceivable allowance for all those matters. Even so, the reality is that we were presented with a Budget finely tuned to within £500,000. We remember all that stuff about "steady as she goes", and how nothing could conceivably be done which would wreck that elaborate calculation by a quarter or half a million pounds, but we are now considering £462·5 million-worth of revised and Supplementary Estimates.
I should be very surprised if the Chief Secretary does not agree in his heart that the truth is that expenditure, even after the exercises we have seen, is still largely out of control. The Chief Secretary tried to show that the error, which I think is 3·7 per cent. overall, could be reduced to 2·4 per cent.—I think that I have got his figures right—if one took out the two biggest items and then contrasted the result with some previous years. Of course that is so, because then we are contrasting a doctored figure with


the whole figure for previous years. If I were allowed to do the same thing to those previous years, I have no doubt that I could obtain figures which would show the reality of the size of the figure of £351·7 million which we are considering, which is, as has been said more than once without challenge, six times the figure of 1964.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury that it is very unsatisfactory that Parliament should be in the position that we are in. But I also agree with the Chief Secretary that he was right on the very first day after the Christmas Recess to put the position before Parliament as openly as he could that is not in dispute. The House of Commons Paper No. 64 says in paragraph 6 of the Memorandum:
From Parliament's point of view the effect of the procedure is to diminish the amount of expenditure which might otherwise be incurred in anticipation of the granting of the necessary funds by Parliament.
I regard that as a somewhat disingenuous comment. From Parliament's point of view, and particularly the Opposition's, the reality is that there is a diminished control by Parliament, and diminished opportunities for the examination of these enormous sums. This is acknowledged it the subsequent paragraph.
The real difficulty is the risk which we have got into, because the total Supplementary Estimates are unusually high, of exhausting the Civil Contingencies Fund—the float, as the Chief Secretary accurately described it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury made an important suggestion. I recognise the validity of the Chief Secretary's point that with the vast sums we now deal with the £75 million in the Fund decreases all the time as a proportion, and therefore its value to the Chief Secretary as pocket money dwindles. But, because this is one of the few checks that Parliament imposes, it is most important that there should be a rigid Statutory limitation to the Civil Contingencies Fund. I am sure that the Chief Secretary agrees.
I had hoped that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) would return, because he asked me some questions. He said that at first he had not thought of speaking, but then decided to do sc. I think that the House will

agree that his first thought was wiser. In his absence, I shall refer only briefly to the points he made. Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, although some of the cuts were "phoney" some were real, and that was why the Opposition did not divide against the main Question when it was put last week.
But the reality which many of my hon. Friends have emphasised, and to which we must return as I conclude my brief speech, is that even if one takes the whole £300 million—and much of it, particularly the £80 million saving on investment grants and the savings on civil servants not being engaged, is unreal, to put it mildly—the whole of that has been swamped by the amounts now before us. It is a pathetic attitude of the hon. Member for Barons Court and other people constantly to whine to the Opposition that they cannot see where this terrible sum can be reduced.
It is especially the Chief Secretary's job to control public expenditure; that is what the job of Chief Secretary was created for. Therefore, any failure here is especially his, and it is apparent that there has been a failure. What we found deplorable in the excellently calm dissertation he gave this afternoon was that there was not a single word of recognition that he has failed in the job he was particularly asked to do.

Orders of the Day — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE

5.50 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I should like to refer to the foot-and-mouth outbreak. Perhaps it is fortunate that this is the next subject for debate, because it was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the Chief Secretary as one of the main items in the Supplementary Estimates with which we are dealing. The outbreak is responsible for an increased cost of £29 million to £30 million. I do not think that that will be anything like the total bill when the outbreak has ended. We could well see further Supplementary Estimates being needed, the total bill in the end running to about £50 million.
I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture here. I hope that he has
recovered. I am grateful to him for


coming to this debate. There is no doubt of the seriousness of the outbreak. It is the worst we have had this century. There has been a great deal of suffering, not only to those directly affected but to those on the fringes. Many thousands have suffered throughout the country.
It is not my intention to make matters more difficult for those administering the measures against the outbreak. Yesterday, when I learnt that I had been fortunate enough to gain a place in the ballot, I thought that the timing of the debate would be very good, because we had seen the graph declining. I thought that we were beginning to see an end to the outbreak. Unfortunately, this is not so. Today's figures of the new cases yesterday show a rise again, and also, unfortunately, this is taking place in my own constituency in Derbyshire and over the border in Staffordshire. Nevertheless, let us hope that we shall see an end to the outbreak soon.
Those dealing with the outbreak are having an extremely hard time, and we all pay tribute to the veterinary and administrative staff. They are doing a wonderful job. They began with an almost non-existent organisation and have had to build one up in a short period of time in order to cope with new cases of 80 a week and more. Over the 14 weeks of the outbreak so far, they have been at full stretch and have dealt with the situation in a splendid manner.
Nevertheless, there have been mistakes. Deficiencies have come to light. I do not want to go into details of particular cases on particular farms. I hope that these things will come out at the public inquiry promised by the Minister. I am concerned about the administrative framework for dealing with the outbreak and what is to happen in future. The right hon. Gentleman has been asking a great deal of his staff and of the regional veterinary officers, who are in control of areas and who have been asked to carry an almost impossible burden. They have done extremely well.
But some of the work, and the amount of it they have had to do, has in many cases been excessive. They have coped extremely well, but in many cases they have had to take decisions hurriedly.

They have been overworked and tired, and it may be that some of their decisions have not been the correct ones because they were not in a position to consider them properly. But this is no fault of theirs. For example, such matters as the closing of markets and slaughterhouses and roads, which are entirely apart from such veterinary decisions as to whether or not stocks are to be slaughtered, have all been included in the decisions which regional veterinary officers have been expected to take. They have had to take decisions of administration which have been onerous and with far-reaching implications. These have included decisions on the movement of stocks on roads.
The regional veterinary officers have, of course, had co-operation from everyone, such as the local authorities and police, in their areas. Nevertheless, the decisions have always come back to them, and it has been left to them to see that they were put into practice and worked. That has been too heavy a load. Perhaps the method adopted in Derbyshire, of which the centre is in Matlock in my constituency, is worth considering. An executive sub-committee was set up by the county council with the deputy chairman of the county council as its chairman. The members included the regional veterinary officer, the deputy chief constable, the surveyor and all other interested parties, such as the secretary of the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. Naturally, the decisions had to be taken in the end by the regional veterinary officer, who was in overall charge, but once he took the decision in principle and said what must be done, the sub-committee put his decisions into practice. Thus relieving him of the exacting supervision. It is worth considering this sort of framework for future organisation. It may be that there are similar bodies in other counties. If not, the Derbyshire scheme is certainly worthy of examination.
But one of the important aspects of the debate concerns what is to happen in future. Yesterday we had four more cases, three of them in the southern part of my constituency. I do not think that we have come to the end of the outbreak yet.
I hope that the sort of committee I suggest for the future would be charged with looking into all kinds of complaints


and rumours. They all have to be looked into, quite rightly, but one of the dangers is that, in such a serious epidemic, there is a colossal amount of rumour. I do not believe that, at present, there is a sufficient organisation to deal properly with rumours. The veterinary organisation has its hands full, as have the police. Something must be done and the kind of committee I have suggested might well be used for the purpose.
There have been all kinds of rumours in this epidemic. I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about some of them. I have no idea whether these were correct. My informants were constituents. I believe them, but I do not intend to refer to them now as I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look into them and consider in future having an organisation to deal with this kind of thing.
As the disease wanes, one would like to know more detail about what the right hon. Gentleman mentioned on 4th December and on 21st December. What are his plans for the relaxation of control of infected areas and controlled areas and so on? This is vitally important to the farmers in those areas. No one doubts that we must not relax restrictions too soon. We do not want a recrudescence of the disease. But it is equally true, as the right hon. Gentleman recognises, that as soon as possible there should he an easing of restrictions to allow the normal flow of animals to and from the markets as much as possible.
I am glad to see that he has relaxed restrictions to a limited degree in counties far away from the infected areas, such as my old constituency in Cornwall, where markets for store stock can now be held under special licence. This is a workable relaxation. However, it is the infected area with which we are mainly concerned, and one would like to hear from the Minister how soon he envisages the controls being relaxed. How soon does he hope, after say a 28 day period free of disease, will farmers be able to re-stock? What controls will he keep? Will they be in his own hands, or will they rest with the police? How much supervision and control does he think necessary?
As to the movement of stock by vehicles, we would like to know how

he envisages these controls will be relaxed and how soon stock will be allowed to move on the periphery of these areas. The right hon. Gentleman has made promises concerning the public inquiry. I accept the fact that he will set one up as soon as the virulence of the disease quietens down. I hope that he will appoint a judicial inquiry, but will not go so far as a Royal Commission. I do not want a departmental inquiry, but a judicial inquiry with some legal luminary, such as a judge as the chairman, and with the evidence taken on oath.
I appreciate the need for speed in looking into these matters and reporting. This is such a serious outbreak, and there are so many consequences flowing from it that I hope that the Minister will do as I have suggested and establish the inquiry to deal, not only with the various mistakes that have been made and the troubles that have arisen, but also to examine the fundamental basis of the policy of slaughter, which on the evidence at the moment I am convinced is right.
The inquiry would also be able to receive evidence from overseas and such countries would be prepared to give evidence to a judicial inquiry, but not so ready perhaps, to do so in the case of a departmental inquiry. Until the inquiry has reported to the House, I hone that the right hon. Gentleman will not relax the ban on imported meat. I need not go over all the arguments that have been put forward during the questions that were put to the Parliamentary Secretary during Question Time. He had a very uncomfortable time stonewalling for his right hon. hon. Friend, and he did it remarkably well.
I want to impress on the Minister how extremely important it is that we should not relax the ban until we know for certain what the cause of the outbreak was, and whether there is any connection whatever with imported meat from areas where the disease is endemic. The right hon. Gentleman has said frequently that the reason why he was imposing this ban was because he did not want to risk a new primary outbreak. May I say here how grateful I and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) are to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing us to see today how efficiently the control centre at Tolworth


was operated. He knows how disastrous it would be if even at this stage there was a new fresh primary outbreak anywhere else in the country. This could happen if the right hon. Gentleman relaxed the ban too soon.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that he will keep the ban on for three months from the time that he made the announcement, and that would be until 4th March. I am pressing as hard as I can to keep this ban in being until the results of the inquiry are received. [Interruption.] It may be forever, as my hon. Friend has said, but in any event let us wait until the inquiry has reported.
I am grateful to have this opportunity of raising this matter. It was one of the biggest items in the Supplementary Estimates and it has caused a great deal of hardship and suffering for a lot of people who are now extremely anxious to know what the right hon. Gentleman intends to do in the future. I am sure that he will take this opportunity of informing the House and the country of how he intends to proceed.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Bert Hazell: May I say how delighted I am to see my right hon. Friend the Minister back in his place again. A few weeks ago we had an agricultural debate which was overshadowed by the foot-and-mouth disease. It is right that we should deal with this issue exclusively tonight, since it affects not only those in the area where the disease was rampant, but a much wider area of the country. At the time of the outbreak, none of us ever imagined that it would escalate to the extent that it did.
Those of us interested in agriculture deprecate the fact that so many people travelled into the area out of sheer curiosity to see what was going on. This did not help to contain the disease. One would hope that in any future disaster steps will be taken to prevent this happening.
In the agriculture debate, I tried to draw attention to one aspect of the problems arising as a consequence of the foot-and-mouth epidemic, namely that of the workers employed in the area. I make no apology for drawing attention to this situation again tonight. Both sides of the

agricultural industry in the area have been working extremely closely together, attempting to deal with the problem of labour. I want to pay tribute to the National Farmers' Union and my own county officials who have endeavoured to relieve some of the difficulties and problems that have occurred recently.
All officials are worried about the future. It is easy to talk of restocking, and I am glad to note that the support that the N.F.U. is giving in helping to restock an area when it becomes free, but there is considerable concern about whether farmers in the area will be able to secure the services of stockmen who have left the industry, or whose services were terminated as a result of the disease. Information that I have received shows that in Cheshire alone over 1,000 workers have been affected in one way or another. Some have had their employment terminated and a number of them are signing on at the employment exchange. The vast majority of them have secured employment in other occupations. I would imagine, human nature being what it is, that those who have been successful in securing employment elsewhere will be most reluctant to give up that employment and come back into farming. These are highly skilled stock people and they are not easy to replace. It is because of this that I make no apology for drawing attention to the situation which will arise.
A large percentage of the stockmen have been kept on by their employers—and I wish to pay tribute to the employers for so doing—but many have been kept on at the basic rate of pay whereas during the time they were in employment, and because their employment entailed seven days a week, these people were able to take home substantial earnings. As a result of the disease their earnings were substantially reduced, and if a person has reason to believe that his earnings will be at a given level so that his standard of living is correspondinly reduced, obviously that man and his family suffer considerably. I appreciate that many employers have retained the services of their workers, but many workers have been retained at a much lower income level with consequential hardship.
I am not seeking direct compensation for the men themselves. There might be administrative difficulties if I were to


press this issue. Possibly direct compensation could not be contained within the limits of the men employed on the farm. Those whose livelihood has been affected in ancillary occupations, or occupations Mat have had to be curtailed because of the disease, would feel that they had justification for compensation. The racing element could say that because racing was stopped for many weeks those employed in stables, jockeys and so on, ought to have some compensation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Member, but I must ask him to relate his observations to the Supplementary Estimates which we are discussing. He seems to be going rather wide.

Mr. Hazell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to keep within the ambit of the Motion. In this matter of compensation, I recognise the difficulties so far as farm workers are concerned. I would ask if my right hon. Friend could arrange for some basis of payment to the employers so that it might be possible for them to pay wages and earnings at the rate they were paid when the stock was or the farm. I stress this because workers will be difficult to obtain if, as a continual consequence of the disease, they can receive only basic rates of pay.
Regarding rates that have been paid to men who have been engaged in clearing-up operations, I feel certain the Committee will agree that there is need for clarification of policy. So far as I understand the Minister's basis for reaching contract figures for clearing-up operations, they are county by county in accordance with the whim of regional officers. The rate paid to farm workers and others in clearing-up operations has varied considerably.
In Derby the rates of pay have been given at 7s. 6d. an hour; in Cheshire the rate paid to farm workers and others was 8s. 6d., and the same in Staffordshire. Farm workers in Salop were paid 6s. 6d. an hour for the same job. In Lincoln shire labourers were paid 6s. 6d. an hour, tractor drivers 7s. 6d., and foremen 8s. 6d. Contractors received 13s. 6d. an hour for labour charges. Who are those contractors, whether farmers or outside agricultural contractors, who were brought in to do the job? It seems there is a lack of policy in this, and in the Com-

mittee of Inquiry that is to be established I hope some thought will be given to a uniform policy for guidance in this matter should such a catastrophe occur again, so that payment for work of a similar nature should not be different as between county and county and man and man.
I think the country has recognised that some form of additional compensation should be payable to those in the industry who have been so affected. In recognition of this fact, I hope the case of the workers and their hardship will not be overlooked. They are part of the industry, and it is essential that they should be retained in the industry, for without them the restocking policy cannot be successfully carried through. The level of production that we hope for will not be attained unless there is adequate manpower.
Workers in the area continually claim at the moment that they have received the wrong end of the stick, that they have had to endure hardship and that there is no possibility of their receiving compensation for the losses they have sustained.
I appreciate that I may have gone somewhat wide of the Motion but I have done this because I feel sorry for the families that I represent. I have had so many cases of hardship brought to my attention that I hope the claims that have been submitted will be sympathetically looked into. If it is not possible this time, because of administrative difficulties to make some payment to workers I hope some method will be made abundantly clear in the future so that these differences might not continue to exist in the event of another tragedy of this nature.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I would like to draw the Minister's attention to something which he possibly already knows about. There is a strong feeling amongst my farmer constituents that we are going through a dangerous phase of the outbreak now when sporadic outbreaks are occurring in different parts of the affected areas. When the B.B.C. makes the announcement it says only that there have been one or two outbreaks in already infected areas. The vital thing is that the people in the immediate vicinity of that outbreak


should know it has happened. I beg the right hon. Gentleman and the B.B.C., if they cannot mention the farm, at least to mention the parish so that the utmost precautions may be taken in this very dangerous period.
To restore the importation of meat from the endemic countries after the three months' ban would be the height of folly. We had only yesterday from the Chairman of the National Farmers' Union an excellent exposé of the futility and madness of doing such a thing. I beg the Minister not to restore the importation of meat from such countries because I am sure that if he did the risk which he would be taking would be absolutely unjustifiable. One has only to consider the incidence of the disease in those countries to realise that. The Minister has admitted that 56 per cent. of the outbreaks in this country since 1954 have been attributable to meat from such countries. Surely this is a vital reason why we should not resume the importation.
I turn to the veterinary angle. Only yesterday, the British Veterinary Association endorsed what the N.F.U. said on the recommendation extending the three months' ban made by the Minister on 4th December. It considers that the ban should continue until such time as an official inquiry has been held into the whole question of meat imports. It was news to me, but the Association welcomed the Order newly made by the Minister under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, prohibiting the removal from storage of all imported meat save that originating from the small number of countries where foot-and-mouth disease is unknown or which have had a long history of freedom from the disease. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will heed what the veterinary profession says.
I now wish to raise something of a more serious nature. I understand that investigating officers are moving around in the infected areas trying to discover all they can about how the earlier outbreaks took place, and that they have unearthed a matter of the utmost importance, namely, that lamb has been sold in the vicinity of my constituency which has been proved to have come from the Argentine. I say "lamb" and not "beef" because people do not nor-

mally expect Argentine lamb to be sold here.
I choose my words carefully because of the utmost importance of this matter, but I am reliably informed that pressure is being brought to prevent samples of this lamb from being properly analysed. I am not making that assertion myself. I am merely saying that I am informed from a source which I believe, and have always believed, is reliable that such is the case. I wish to give the Minister an opportunity to say something about that if he feels able to do so.
If the Minister lifts the ban, I want him to admit that it will be contrary to the advice of his own veterinary officers who, I understand, are virtually unanimous in their belief that the ban should not be lifted. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong, I hope that he will say so. I do not believe that I am. I hope that he will not feel it right to fly in the face of his own professional advisers and take no heed of their advice.
I hope that the Minister will accept what I have said in the spirit in which I have said it. I have not tried to make any political points or to "get at" the Minister personally. These are serious matters and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not mouthing careless rumour. Anyone in my position in the centre of all this must hear a lot of things, and many of them must be discounted. But I have every reason to believe that what I have said is founded on fact.

6.25 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody: I do not intend to detain the Committee long because many other Members wish to speak and there are many other subjects which no doubt we shall discuss during the long hours of the night, though this is perhaps the most important subject which we will be discussing.
This country has been passing through, and I hope that we have very nearly passed through, the most serious epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease recorded in recent times. The part of the country which I am lucky enough to represent has been fortunate in that it has escaped, but the rural community as a whole throughout the country has felt great


anxiety in recent weeks, especially during the difficult weeks when the epidemic appeared to be gradually and inexorably spreading across the country.
Given the explosive nature of the onset and the particularly virulent nature of the virus in the epidemic, the picture can be seen in some ways as a remarkable success story. One or two hon. Members have mentioned the fact that a large area of the countryside has been stricken by the plague. But, when we look back at previous epidemics, and when we realise that there have been well over 2,000 outbreaks in this epidemic, the remarkable feature is how the epidemic has been contained in one part of the country.
Never before have we had an epidemic which was anything like the size of the one which has spread virtually throughout the land. The fact that the epidemic has been contained so very well is largely a vindication of the policies which have been pursued—the traditional slaughter policy and the policy of control—and an indication of the co-operation which the Ministry has received from the agricultural community and from those living in rural areas. Although some people may have needlessly travelled around the infected areas, the great bulk of the community has played a valuable part in helping to control the epidemic.
The time has come for us to feel a degree of cautious optimism. It is perhaps a mistake to look too closely at the day-to-day figures. It does not concern me much if they vary from day to day. But over each week one sees a steady decline in the epidemic. I think that it will continue. However, my right hon. Friend the Minister must not relax the restrictions and measures too quickly. Considerable pressure will be put on him in weeks to come by people who, understandably, would like to see all the measures abandoned. I ask my right hon. Friend not to relax the measures too quickly. If there is doubt, keep them on for a week or two longer.
I wish to take up a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). There is a sensational story in today's Daily Express about meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic being sold in the country when its sale was forbidden by Ministry regula-

tion. I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any truth in the report or whether the matter is being investigated, because reports of this nature must caw e anxiety in the infected areas.
I wish to touch on the question of the importation of meat from countries where foot-and-mouth is endemic. It is easy to call for a total and permanent ban on imports, but if we do this we must realise that there will be some damaging consequences. There are two sides of the story. There will be a certain financial cost which will be paid by the consumer and perhaps a limitation of the choice which the consumer has grown to expect in the butchers' shops.
Another factor is the damage that might be done to our international trading position by such action. We have to remember the possible effect on our agricultural industry, because there might be repercussions on, for instance, our exports of livestock.
Too easily, some people have made a comparison with America, New Zealand and Australia—and, to a less extent, with Ireland. They have said that just because those countries ban imports from areas where foot-and-mouth is endemic they have had little trouble with the disease for a very long time. The fact is that each of those countries is geographically isolated to an extent that we are not. Whether we like it or not, we have the disease just a short distance away in northern France, and to ban imports from the countries referred to would not necessarily have the same dramatic effect that it has had in America and elsewhere.
Nevertheless, I ask my right hon. Friend to continue the present ban on the importation of raw meat until the inquiry has reported. The ban itself should be one of the items dealt with by the inquiry—

Mr. R. T. Paget: My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) will have observed that none of the outbreaks was anywhere near France, and I suggest that this particular outbreak has pretty well eliminated all other sources.

Dr. Dunwoody: That is true of the present outbreak, but we know that some outbreaks in the past have been related to causes other than the importation of


meat. The cause of one outbreak some years ago was strongly suspected to have been the importation of bones from the Continent.
The inquiry should be independent and public: not a Royal Commission, but something more than the Departmental inquiry that has been the previous tradition. It is vital that the facts are not only established but seen by the whole agricultural community to have been established beyond doubt.
I believe that our present policy will be endorsed, but it should be re-examined, and the whole question of future safeguards should be considered. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us something of the nature and membership of the inquiry, and assure us that it will be set up in the near future.
It is right that we should pay tribute to the agricultural community, and to everyone in the rural communities, particularly in the affected areas, for all they have done in recent months. Special thanks are due to the veterinary surgeons, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will pay special tribute to those veterinary surgeons who have come from overseas to help us. Perhaps he can assure the House and, through the House, those countries overseas that have come to our help, that if ever they were faced with a similar situation we would be prepared to put our veterinary skills at their disposal in the same way.
I think that the worst is over and that final victory is in sight. That is largely due to the combined efforts of the Ministry, the industry and the rural community, and this debate enables us, on behalf of the country as a whole, to pay a tribute to them all.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: We in Staffordshire have also suffered very grievous losses, which are still continuing. I echo the hope of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Dr. John Dunwoody) that the Minister will be not too swift in his relaxation of the general controls. I recall that during almost the whole of 1922 and 1923 there was a series of outbreaks which could be regarded almost as a general epidemic, although there were intervals in between.

The Minister must eschew any false optimism at present, although the statistics are improving. We should also be very careful about the relaxation of the import ban. In the long term, for various reasons, the country has to be a meat importer, but I hope that the ban will not be lifted until the inquiry has reported.
In our last debate on the subject I suggested that during the period of the ban the Ministry should see whether it could do anything to improve veterinary controls in our main area of import—the Argentine—and I believe that the Minister then undertook to make some such inquiry. I also suggest that as an intermediate measure we should see that imported meat is imported off the bone. For a period that would have an unfortunate effect on the trade of the exporting country. In any case, I hope that the Minister will continue the ban on meat imports until the results of the inquiry are known.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I cannot join other hon. Members in their views on how all round, the outbreak has been handled by the Ministry, but, like them, I am very anxious about imported meat. In past outbreaks there have been many possible sources, but I should have thought that on this occasion the other sources of main causes were eliminated. Birds may have moved the disease within an infected area, but if they had been the source we could not have confined the outbreak as we have done, because birds cannot be confined. Had they been the source, the disease would have spread over the whole country. That being so, the source must be looked for elsewhere, but I do not see what other source there can be.
I want the Minister to consider not only the question of imported meat but the question of releasing meat that has been already imported. In Oxenden, Northants, we had an isolated outbreak on a farm next to mine. All the rumour there is that the cause was meat taken from cold storage. This was a new outbreak, and there had been no connections with any of the existing outbreaks. The outbreak has been isolated to a certain farm, but it seems to be an instance of meat released. I urge my right hon. Friend very strongly neither to import nor to release from cold storage any


meat until the committee has reported. This is a very serious matter, and my right hon. Friend probably knows a great deal better than I just how anxious the farming community is.
It will impose a great hardship on the Argentine, which is our traditional source o supply, if in future we say that we shall take meat only from countries that have elminated this disease, but perhaps we might co-operate with the Argentine authorities if they were to adopt a slaughter policy, too. It is time that they did so. It is time that any meat exporting country got rid of this disease, and in the long term we might do the Argentine people a good turn, particularly if we were to assist them in the short run.

6.40 p.m.

Sir John Foster: I have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, because the agricultural part of my constituency was probably the hardest hit in England, with the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris). I want first to support the plea for the ban. The Minister gave as his reason for banning the import of meat from a country where the disease is endemic that he did not want to risk another primary outbreak, but surely he cannot want to risk a primary outbreak while the inquiry is proceeding. It would be the height of folly to lift the ban while the inquiry was proceeding if there were then another primary outbreak.
Hon. Members have spoken of the anxiety of farmers that the restrictions should not be lifted too quickly and I support them in that, but I want to make a few remarks about the anxiety of farmers about the way in which they can start again. The main difficulty seen by farmers in my constituency and, I imagine, by farmers in all areas which have been affected is how they are to restock.
The difficulty is that the early sufferers from the disease were compensated at a certain price and that the price of animals has since risen. They do not see how they can restock on the same scale from the compensation which they have been given. The Minister has been pressed on this subject by many of my hon. Friends and has said that he is consulting the N.F.U. While I appreciate that his injuries, about which I commiserate with

him, have probably kept him out of the running for a long time, the decision should have come by now.
In answer to several Questions he said that he was sympathetic towards the view that the price of animals had risen over the price originally given to the early sufferers, and in a letter to me from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary it was said that the Minister was hoping to arrive at an equitable solution. Surely the only equitable solution is to pay replacement value, and that decision should have been taken a long time ago.
There has been some confusion. When my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked the Minister whether he would introduce replacement value, the Minister said:
Yes, I am sympathetic to that. The point is a real one. It was certainly put to me when I was in the areas concerned, and the local farmers presented their views to me strongly." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st December, 1967; Vol 756, c. 1484]
When my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry asked the Joint Parliamentary Secretary whether he could reaffirm that the Government were committed to the principle of compensating at replacement value for stock lost, naturally being under that impression as the Minister had said that he was anxious to reach an equitable solution, the Parliamentary Secretary said:
No, Sir. We do not pay compensation at replacement values but at market values. As the hon. Member knows, we are carrying forward the first valuation and we are making a concession there …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT,
24th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 381.]
My hon. Friend and I have been unable to find out what the Parliamentary Secretary meant by that. Did he mean that he was carrying forward for taxation purposes, because it has been suggested that compensation should be carried forward on the basis of three years or more? But the hon. Gentleman rejects the view that the only equitable solution is replacement value and substitutes for it "carrying forward the valuation". I hope that the Minister will explain what those words mean.
When farms are infected and compensation is given, compensation is also given for feedingstuffs which are contaminated, but I have been pressing the Minister to extend that compensation,


because feedingstuffs which are not contaminated are useless, first because some deteriorate quickly and, secondly, because it is impossible to get rid of those which do not. No farmer would take feeding-stuffs from an infected farm and all the feedingstuffs on a farm which has been infected are themselves useless. I hope that the Minister will see his way to extending that compensation.
The unfortunate farmers who have been affected are sometimes the victims of a lack of communication about administration. A small instance is that in Cheshire a farmer was paid 13s. 6d. for labour used to clean up the farm, being 8s. 6d. for the labourer and 5s. for the farmer to take account of overheads. On 4th December that was changed to 13s. for the farmer and 8s. 6d. for the labourer, while the amount to be paid for Sundays was reduced from double time to time and a half. Some farmers in my constituency did not hear of this. The 4th of December was a Monday and on the following Sunday farm labourers were paid at the old rate. In those cases compensation should have been paid at the same rate until communication with all the farmers in the area had been established.
There are various other small issues with which I have worried the Minister, but with which I will not worry him now. The main issue for those affected is that of taxation. In certain cases it is possible for the farmer under Section 23 of the 1953 Act to go on a herd basis, but that provision is too restrictive and applies only to productive animals and thus leaves out heifers. But there are many farmers who cannot go on a herd basis and surely the Minister has had long enough to discuss this matter with the N.F.U. Is it the Inland Revenue which is proving difficult and which will not reach a decision? I urge the Minister to give an early decision on this most important subject.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is not my intention to detain the House for long, but it is necessary that a slightly contrary point of view on this issue should be expressed. The whole House and the country have great sympathy with the anguish which the farming community has experienced and

is experiencing in this widespread outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, but there are other interests which must be considered. I want first to refer to the ban on imported meat. We have also to consider the interests of the many people engaged in the wholesale and retail distribution of meat and, above both the farming interests and the interests of meat distributors and traders, the interests of the British consumer. Since November, last year, to 31st December, the wholesale price of meat increased by 40 per cent. That was obviously not entirely due to the ban on imported meat. There were many contributory factors and devaluation may have had some influence.
The wholesale price of meat has gone up by 40 per cent., but average prices in retail butchers' shops have not shown the same percentage increase. I understand from many contacts in the retail trade that one of the difficulties which it faces is that it is very hard to adjust one's percentage mark-up on meat at short notice, and that one has to take probably a month's trading before one can begin to adjust the mark-up to meet variations in the price of wholesale meat.
I want to remind my right hon. Friend that he is not just Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. He is also Minister of Food, and has a responsibility not only to farmers but to the community at large for the supply of food and the maintenance of a reasonable price level. I hope that he will stick to the three-month limit for the ban which has been imposed on imported meat. Certainly I hope that he does not extend the period of the ban to cover the time taken by the public inquiry, which will probably stretch over 18 months or two years from the time of convening to reporting, the Minister considering it, and making a decision. That would be against the public interest. From inquiries which I have made, there appears to be no concrete evidence that this outbreak definitely is connected with the import of foreign meat.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: Can the hon. Gentleman make any suggestion about where the outbreak could have come from, if not from imported meat?

Mr. Wellbeloved: I cannot answer that question. I am not an expert on the


subject. I have made inquiries from people who have experience in these matters, and they tell me that they are not certain that there is a definite link between imported meat and this outbreak. In view of that, I believe that the Minister has to strike a balance between the need to protect our farmers from foot-and-mouth infection and the need to supply the community at large with meat at reasonable prices.
My plea to my right hon. Friend is not to extend the ban, even while waiting for the report of the public inquiry. Rather, I hope that he will relax it at the expiration of the present time limit, in the interests of the consumer. Unless he has placed before him very positive evidence linking the outbreak with imported meat, he has a clear responsibility to consumers as Minister of Food which overrides his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture.

6.54 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I want to apologise to the Minister in advance, because I suspect that he will answer this debate at an hour when I have departed to fulfil a long-standing engagement.
I turn immediately to the speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). He represented a very understandable and moderately argued point of view. However, I think that he is totally wrong.
Those of us who argue about the ban on the importation of meat from countries with an endemic record of foot-and-mouth disease are not protectionist lobbyists for the farming community. We are the guardians of the public purse, and it is particularly suitable that we should be arguing our case on the occasion when we are considering the revised Supplementary Estimates which show an increase of £29 million arising from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. It has been unprecedented in its intensity in the present century and certainly in its financial implications. As a result, it is only natural that we should ask where was the source of the infection and what led to the epidemic which has placed such an unpredictable burden on the public purse and on every taxpayer, be he farmer or consumer.
There is a presumption of guilt on Latin-American meat, and I quote in evidence the Gowers Report. Discussing

the importation of chilled and frozen meat from the Argentine and, to a smaller extent, from Brazil, Uruguay and Chile, it said:
This is thought by the Ministry of Agriculture to be responsible for more primary outbreaks in England than any other single cause.
It was undoubtedly with that thinking in mind that the Minister ordered the original temporary ban. It is difficult to think of a reason why he should have done it, unless there was some presumption of guilt.
We have heard today some interesting and serious information from my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) which again casts a shadow of suspicion on the extent to which imported meat has contributed to the outbreak and spread of the epidemic in Cheshire and Shropshire.
I do not want to be accused of rumour mongering, but I want to put before the Minister one or two extracts from correspondence which I have had with a constituent of mine about the temporary ban. My constituent wrote:
The temporary ban is just a joke in bad taste. It cannot affect this outbreak and will not prevent the next unless made permanent. Nor can I understand why it is still being stated publicly that the outbreak has not been traced to imported meat, when I was told on Friday afternoon by a senior member of the Ellesmere Centre (with no suggestion that it was in confidence) that Argentine lamb had been traced to the yard in which the first sow and gilt were served some five days before they went lame.
I replied in what I think was a very responsible tone:
I note your comments on Argentine lamb and the original outbreak. I have no doubt the Ministry will wish to make an early statement, but it is of such importance I think they will wish to make it only with the fullest available evidence.
I stand by that. Of course, I do not expect any comment on the kind of rumours which inevitably develop in areas which have been so harshly affected by such an epidemic, but when farmers see the Ministry reluctant to continue the ban, are they not entitled to infer that the Ministry is satisfied that Latin-American meat has been given a clean bill of health? If the Ministry has not yet been able to assure itself that there is no breath of suspicion about Latin-American meat, surely the case for the continuance of the ban is overwhelming.
I make that as my one point. The other which I had intended to make was put forward with great eloquence by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster), when he asked whether compensation is to be at replacement value or at some notional market value—and, in today's circumstances, it can only be notional.
I know that the Minister has great sympathy for those in the agricultural community who have been so harshly affected by the epidemic, and I am sure that, when he replies to the debate, he will try to clear up as many of the misunderstandings as possible. However, if he wants to do something to sustain morale among the agricultural and the taxpaying community in the affected areas, it will be if he can give us an indication either that he is convinced that there is no suspicion on Argentine lamb, or that he will continue the ban until the committee which has been set up has been able to make a full and authoritative report.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. J. C. Jennings: My constituency is often mistakenly called Burton-upon-Trent. In actual fact it is the Burton division of Staffordshire. This is an important distinction in the context of the subject of this debate. Burton-upon-Trent is obviously associated with the manufacture of refreshment in the form of beer, but a very large proportion of my division is agricultural land stretching, on the one side, to the River Dove at Ashbourne and, on the other side, almost to the Cannock Chase. Within this agricultural area are many villages and agricultural communities.
An hon. Member has said that Staffordshire has been one of the most hard-hit counties by this epidemic. Within that context again, my own division has been very sadly hit. As the graph for the country has tended to go down, the graph for Staffordshire and my own division has tended to rise.
I know that the Minister has been under great stress both from the influence of the foot-and-mouth epidemic and other domestic causes of bereavement and accident. He has my entire sympathy, being an old friend. I do not want unduly to embarrass or badger him, but this does

not prevent me from bringing to light one or two points of great importance. I will deal only with two. One is the question of compensation which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster). The other is the use of emergency powers.
I will not reiterate all that has been said about compensation, because over the last two or three weeks this has been hammered well home. However, my constituents are very worried about being assessed at an early stage at a certain value and having to replace at a later stage. While the disease is so virulent in their own locality they are not to be allowed to restock, and they fear they will have to restock at a much higher price than the assessment they were given when the assessor came up. All I am asking is that the Minister, in his declared sympathy on this matter, will make a statement very soon. In his answer to me by letter he said that he hoped to make a statement soon. I hope that to allay any further anxiety on the part of a much bedevilled community he will make it very soon.
The next point concerns the use of the emergency powers which he, quite legitimately and rightly, took to himself to deal with the spread of this disease. Here I wish to make what is not only a constituency point, but a national point. The country land in my division includes a fair proportion of Duchy of Lancaster land. In that Duchy land is an historic town—I must not refer to it as a village; it is a town—Tutbury town, with Tutbury Castle and quite a big common called Tutbury Common. It was in my mind to draw to the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the fact that Tutbury Common was from time to time inhabited by itinerants —tinkers. This is in an area where at that time there was a foot-and-mouth case on both sides.
I asked him, in the interests of stopping the spread of the disease, whether he would use his emergency powers to ban entry on to such land, as the itinerants came time after time and invaded the surrounding farmland—I need not go into that—and their animals in particular invaded the surrounding farmland. If ever there was a case for using emergency powers and banning entry on to such


land this was it, and this must be multiplied in many places. The reason for refusing to use his emergency powers and ban entry was that on investigation it had been found that the tinkers had left voluntarily. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that tinkers come back and back and back? They have their selected spots, and this, for years, has been one of them. Therefore, I ask the Minister, in the interests of safety, even now, with the disease still in Staffordshire and Derbyshire, to apply his emergency powers to this and other like spots.
In conclusion, I join my hon. Friends in asking the right hon. Gentleman to look seriously at the extension of the ban. I will not go into the reasons. I am grateful for what he has tried to do and I am glad of this opportunity of speaking in the debate.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: Sometimes it is said that figures are meaningless, but, living in an infected area for the last three months on my own farm surrounded by this infection and luckily surviving, this figure of £30 million compensation for the foot-and-mouth disease outbreak has brought home to me the tremendous strain on the farming community. I would emphasise the strain on the farming community; not just the farming community who have had the misfortune to lose their herds, but all those other members who, day in, day o it, night in, night out, have to watch their animals. On occasions when they have suspected that an animal was sick, without knowing the reasons, I am glad to say that they have reported extremely quickly to the Ministry and, therefore, the Ministry has been enabled the better to control the disease. I should like to pay real tribute to the stoicism of these farmers and farm workers. They have behaved magnificently under pressure.
When people outside the farming community say to me, "Of course, the slaughter policy is right", I wonder whether they would think that in the case of their own domestic animals. If say there was a disease among cats or dogs which necessitated the slaughter of their pets, would they take the same view about the slaughter policy being right? I rather doubt it. The slaughter policy, in my opinion, is right on this occasion, but I believe that in this modern day and age,

the slaughter policy may be a policy of despair. When the inquiry is set up I think that it must look beyond the slaughter policy in this country, especially when one takes into consideration the very large units which we have in agriculture today and the fact that we live in a highly mobile community.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) mentioned consequential loss. He mentioned it particularly concerning the farm workers who unfortunately today, if they have not been displaced, have had to drop down very likely to the basic rate of pay on farms which have had the misfortune to have this disease.
There are many other forms of consequential loss. One must remember that this is an outbreak which was quite unprecedented. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has said that the figures were unprecedented. Everything to do with this outbreak is unprecedented. I understand that even the form of the virus is unprecedented. In these circumstances, there has been an alarming amount of consequential loss. We have already referred to the farm workers, but on the infected farms the consequential loss far exceeds the cost of paying for labour. Those farms, like any other business, cannot earn a profit unless they are operating in a somewhat normal manner.
In an ordinary outbreak farms can get back into business in a matter of six weeks—that is acknowledged on all sides —but in this case there are many farms in the County of Cheshire which, alas, will not get back into business properly until the autumn of this year. They just cannot do it. I doubt whether there will be any substantial restocking even by the spring of this year. Although the number of outbreaks has now dropped to a low level—I had the good fortune to go to the Ministry's Chief Control Centre at Tolworth this morning—the recent outbreaks, unfortunately, have been extremely widely spread over the whole of the infected area. When I say that the infected area is a matter of 10,000 square miles, one realises that it is a large chunk of the centre of England, and a small part of Wales.
There is, too, the consequential loss to those farmers who have managed to


keep in business. I know this for my own part. It is very difficult to carry on a business when one cannot allow a private car or a lorry to come into one's yard. No stock has been going off premises except for slaughter. In other words, the main business of the livestock farmer has been clamped down on in this vast area of about 10,000 square miles.
There is also the consequential loss to those who are only remotely associated with agriculture. Racing, and a hundred and one other industries in the countryside, have been affected by this vast outbreak. I make this point to show that this figure of over £30 million is a small proportion of the total loss to the nation from this epidemic.
Many tributes have been paid to the veterinary profession. I have seen its members under great strain at regional level, and I think that I might be permitted to tell a short story about the strain on them. We happened to call in our doctor over Christmas. I asked him, "Have you had anything to do with the foot-and-mouth outbreak?". He said, "No, but I was called in to attend one of the Ministry's veterinary surgeons who broke his jaw". I said that I was sorry to hear that, and he said that it was an extremely unfortunate occurrence. The man was exhausted, and went to the local bar for a drink, but, unfortunately, before he had his drink he fell off the bar stool and broke his jaw. That illustrates the extent of the exhaustion of some of the Minister's loyal and faithful servants, and I think that we owe them a deep debt of gratitude.
There are one or two factors which I would like to mention in connection with the immediate future. First, there is the question of decontrol and restocking. Anyone who has not studied the course of this epidemic closely might think that decontrolling areas is as simple as controlling them. Unfortunately, very much more difficult and delicate decisions have to be taken during the decontrolling phase than the controlling one, because, when the controls are being put on, it is clear that there is a danger in the area. During the decontrolling phase, however, nobody knows where the danger lurks. We can get recrudescence, and in the area of North Cheshire in which I am particularly

interested, only last week we had three primary outbreaks which effectively sealed off the area at a time when the chief veterinary officer was hoping to decontrol it.
That is the danger of decontrol, and I offer one small piece of advice. I hope that the decontrolling will be done in fairly wide bands, and not by freeing a few parishes at a time, because if the decontrol instructions are not fairly specific and clear they will be misunderstood by the whole of the livestock industry. It is essential, when one comes to decontrol, not to run any unnecessary risks.
Another warning which I issue to the Minister is that time is not on his side with regard to the elimination of this disease. Fortunately, this epidemic has occurred during winter time, but "turning out time" is coming. The cows will go into the pastures again, and when they do the risk will increase enormously. Everything should be done now to clamp down quickly on this phase of the epidemic so that it is not still around when "turning out time" arrives.
I am wholly on the side of the Editor of the Farmer and Stockbreeder who, in his editorial on 16th January, when writing about the inquiry, said that it should be carried out immediately, while the scent is hot. He went on to say that the type of committee he would like to see would be
impartial, open-minded, scientifically judicial, endowed with a sense of urgency …
I could not put it better than that. It is essential that this committee gets on with its job now. I believe that it has a job to do now. The scent is hot now. If this committee is set up later, its members will not be able to go round and see the organisation on the ground in operation, because it will be withdrawn shortly, we hope.
At the moment, one can go, as I did. and get an excellent description from the Minister's chief advisers of what is happening on the ground at Tolworth. I knew exactly what was behind the explanation, so it meant a lot to me. The members of the committee will not necessarily have lived through the epidemic, and therefore know all about it, and the situation which obtained whilst it was with us. They will not be able


to judge the situation properly unless they have a chance of seeing the organisation on the ground. If the committee were set up now, and I can see no reason why it should not be, its members would have an opportunity of getting down to business almost immediately.
There is one central question which will face this committee. I think that the Government must clear this issue before the inquiry. I am referring to the continuation of the ban on imported meat from countries where the disease is endemic. The committee will, in any case have a very tough job to do, because of the mass of scientific evidence. I have recently rubbed shoulders with the scientific evidence, and I know that nothing clearcut is emerging.
Leaving the scientific evidence on one side, in my opinion there are only two courses open to the committee. It can either decide on a slaughter policy, plus a ban on imports. or it can decide on imports plus a controlled vaccination policy in this country. I do not believe that there is any other alternative. Those are the only two courses of action which it can consider, and unless it knows the Government's proposals with regard to the importation of meat, I do not believe that it will be able to produce a realistic solution.
I implore the Minister to get on with setting up this committee. He has kindly written to me saying that he will accept evidence from me—and presumably from others as well—which will be stored and fed into the committee. I do not think that this is going far enough. I ask him, in the name of the future protection of cur livestock, to set up this committee now.

7.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has done the agricultural community, and in fact the public as a whole, a great service by raising this important topic tonight.
Having, some years ago, experienced to a much lesser extent a foot-and-mouth epidemic in Somerset, I have every sympathy with the anguish of people in the affected areas, and I thank heaven that we in Somerset have been spared—and

hope that we will continue to be—from a further epidemic of this terrible disease.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West said about the intense strain imposed on regional veterinary officers when these things happen. It seems sensible, under emergency powers which exist, to set up some sort of executive committee, perhaps a smaller one than that suggested by my hon. Friend, because small committees are probably more efficient, and come to the right conclusions more quickly. I think that something of this nature is necessary to relieve professional officers of some of the additional strain which falls on them because of administrative duties. I am thinking particularly of such things as the control of traffic on roads, the control of sports, and so on, all of which have presented problems.
I should like, now, to ask the Minister about the activities at Pirbright. I have a high regard for the research which has been carried out in recent years. I think that we owe a debt of gratitude to the scientists who work there. But I have a feeling—perhaps I am thoroughly misinformed—that the experiments are too much in the laboratory and too little of a practical nature, in the field. Have experiments ever been carried out in controlled conditions by deliberately infecting the feet of birds, for instance, with a virus
to discover how long it persists? Have they ever been carried out by deliberately infecting the wheels, chassis and bodies of motor vehicles and then seeing how best they can be decontaminated and how long the infection persists? These sort of practical experiments, if not already carried out, would be very useful.
Lastly, I implore the Minister to put into the terms of reference of the committee of inquiry the advisability or otherwise of raising the ban on imports and on release from cold storage. Let these people, who are to investigate the matter thoroughly, look into this other most important aspect and advise the Minister as they see fit. Recent evidence from our grassland research establishments shows that, with a little more effort, we could come very near filling the gaps at present filled by beef imports, many from countries where this disease is endemic. That is a risk which we cannot afford any longer for the


sake of perhaps 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of our beef figures. I implore the Minister to look carefully at this. Quite apart from the disease, would it not be a good thing to produce more of our beef within the confines of our own country?

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I am glad to be able to speak on this very important subject. First, I am very glad to see that the Minister's accident was not so bad as to prevent his presence here tonight.
I want to deal with two subjects on which I know a little. The first is the valuations. The question of the principal valuations and of the increased value from the date of the outbreak, with, possibly, another increase from now until the time that the farms can be restocked, has been gone into fully. The Minister has said on several occasions that he fully appreciates this. But one point connected with the actual valuation is that the livestock auctioneers and valuers who have been doing these foot-and-mouth valuations had a meeting in London last week, which I attended. One matter which concerned them greatly was the question of big valuations in which valuers had been on farms from 8 o'clock in the morning to probably 9 o'clock at night.
One valuer, a very well-known man, was very concerned because, at about 9 p.m., he was asked for his figure for the Friesian herd. Concerned on the farm were this herd, a Lincoln herd, a sheep flock and a big herd of pigs. This valuation was passed to the chief vet in the area on the telephone. Later, the valuer was called to the phone and told that his valuations were well above the average of those settled, and that they must be wrong. A veterinary surgeon, however eminent—they are all first-class at their own job —cannot instruct a valuer about the sort of value to place on herds on an average basis. In fact, this herd was very well-known, a pedigree herd from which a lot of stock had been sold, and its value was probably well above the average. If any instruction like this has gone out from the Ministry, it should be carefully looked at again.
One other suggestion from this meeting was that, if it could be arranged,

two valuers should be appointed for big valuations. The stress and strain on one man who has to decide on the values of different classes of cattle, working from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m., with the whole farm under great stress, and having to give spot valuations without being able to check against records, makes it very difficult for a man on his own. It was suggested that it might be possible to employ two valuers in such cases who could consult.
I therefore think that we could look at valuations again and I hope that, shortly, the farmers who have suffered these losses in the early stages can be told that some additional payment will be made to them for the additional costs of replacing their stock.
The taxation angle has already been covered, but it is very important. I know that farmers doing their own valuations for tax purposes sometimes do not include as big a figure as they should for their stock. They will be compensated at full market value, and if tax has to be paid and they are left with only two-thirds of the value, out of which they must buy replacement stock, they will be in a difficult position. This is worrying many people and may force some farmers out of livestock farming altogether. I gather that the Minister is sympathetic to this attitude and I hope that he can impress his point of view on the Treasury and that the farming community's worry about this matter will be cleared up shortly.
I need not stress again the question of the import ban, but I go much further than most people. I believe that it should be made permanent. I am absolutely convinced—as the Minister knows, I am connected with sales of livestock—that, in two or three years, particularly with the additional stores which should come from Ireland, we could be nearly self-sufficient in this country. That would enable us to give the consumer wholesome, fresh meat at home without the danger of these terrific extra payments for tackling outbreaks of this kind.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, the Gowers Committee drew attention to the fact that the major number of outbreaks, at any rate up to then, had been proved to have started from imported meat. What an opportunity we have as well to save this


country extra imports at a time when our financial situation makes them undesirable.
I assume that much of the meat in cold store was imported before the first outbreak. Therefore, some of it may be infected. I do not know whether this meat can be cleared or whether we can discover whether it is infected, but to release it from cold store while there is, my chance that some may be infected is absolute madness. The wholesalers would, of course, have to be compensated.
We do not blame the Government at all for this outbreak. We think that it has been—so far as I can discover, in talking to many people from the areas concerned—handled well. The veterinary surgeons have done a wonderful job.
Many people have suffered, including livestock auctioneers—who have suffered tremendous losses from the closure of markets—transport hauliers and stockmen. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) that many stockmen will leave the industry for other jobs. The true stockman is very much attached to his stock and I am sure that, if he can return to a stockman's job, he will do so. We must do all that we can to help those who have suffered and ensure that an outbreak of this nature does not recur.

7.31 p.m.

Sir Clive Bossom: The hon. and learned Member for Northamptan (Mr. Paget) talked about starting a slaughter policy in the Argentine. I do rot believe that such a policy could or would be enforced. The whole thing would be impracticable. Be that as it may, it would be criminal and madness to lift the ban on the import of Argentine meat, in this country, particularly at this critical stage in the battle against foot-and-mouth.
If the ban were lifted, I would find it virtually impossible to explain that to the farmers in my part of the world, who have suffered great hardship and loss in the last three months. In the area of Bircher Common, in Herefordshire, 18 small farmers lost all their stock simply because their farms adjoined the common. If the ban were lifted they would regard the sacrifice that they have made as completely meaningless.
These farmers, and people in the agriculture industry would lose all confidence that it was the Minister's desire and intention to stamp out this plague. The N.F.U. headquarters has demanded that the ban be kept on, at least until after a searching inquiry has reported to the Minister. No one can blame the farmers for demanding that the ban remain. After all, in Herefordshire alone, 1 million livestock, worth more than £20 million, are at stake. The risk involved in lifting the ban is far too great.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred to the price of beef and I agree that it has increased. However, lately supplies of home and Irish cattle have helped to bring the price down and housewives have sensibly resisted paying through the nose for beef, and this, too, has forced down prices. Now that the fatstock markets are beginning to reopen, the position should be greatly improved. The price of beef will return to near normal, although it is bound to be somewhat higher than it was last November. The president of the butchers' organisation, Mr. Bill Brabin, is, I suggest, being far too alarmist in forecasting that beef supplies will be 30 per cent. short of requirements in two months' time.
Throughout the debate hon. Members on both sides have urged the Minister to retain the ban on the import of Argentinian meat. He must do that if he cares about the future supply of meat in this country. Not only the herd book societies and members of the N.F.U. have urged the Minister not to lift the ban, but the Country Landowners' Associations and vets have called on him not to lift it. Women's institutions throughout the Midlands have sent resolutions to their headquarters—after all, these women are the true consumers—urging the retention of the ban. I would like to see the ban permanent as long as there is a slaughter policy in this country.
The Minister must be a worried man because his special investigation unit, which has spent its entire time trying to find out the real causes of the outbreak, has unearthed some disturbing facts in the Midlands. As was exposed in today's newspapers, two firms in the Birmingham area which have been selling frozen Argentine meat up to as late as the week ending 14th January—I hope that the


Minister will either confirm or deny those rumours and will reveal all the facts. I end as I began, by stressing that it would be criminal and madness to lift the ban. I hope that the Minister will get the inquiry moving as soon as humanly possible.

7.36 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn boson: I am grateful for this opportunity to speak in the debate. It is a pleasure to see the Minister in his place after his recent personal misfortunes. He has had a difficult winter and not his worst enemy would have wished on him the epidemic which he has had to handle. The right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on his handling of the matter. I have criticised him in the past and I will no doubt do so in future, but on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman and his team—and particularly his veterinary and administrative officers in the field—are to be heartily congratulated on their handling of this terrible outbreak.
Many farmers in my constituency have lived in a virtual state of seige for a considerable time. Few people can sufficiently assimilate what life has been like for these people. On the whole, the farming community has reacted extremely well at a time of what must be described as national tragedy.
Most of the points which I had intended to make have already been fully covered. That is inevitable in a debate of this kind. I will, therefore, merely reinforce some of the arguments that have been adduced. We are debating a very large Supplementary Estimate. However, £29 million is a relatively small proportion of the cost to the country of the foot-and-mouth outbreak. The incidental losses to many industries have been great—to haulage contractors, merchants and so on. The farmers in the eastern part of my county have been directly affected by the outbreak and the farmers in the western part, who supply store animals, have also been badly hit because they have been unable to sell their animals, have had to buy hay and so on. Altogether, the cost to the community has been enormous.
Consumers are also taxpayers, a point eloquently made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). Many

of them accept that, on balance of probability—without going further; I suppose that little more can be said without a complete scientific inquiry—there is an overwhelming case for saying that meat from the South American countries, particularly the Argentine, is probably responsible for the outbreak. Britain could not face another bill of the amount we are discussing if there should be a subsequent outbreak. There is, therefore, a heavy duty on the Minister—and I say this without being a protectionist —to make absolutely certain that another outbreak does not occur in future, particularly from a traceable source.
All the evidence available now points in one direction. That is why it is encumbent on the Minister to extend the ban. It would be fair to the Argentine suppliers to do so because we are putting them in a difficult position. I trust that all these aspects will be closely studied by the inquiry as a matter of urgency and that an interim report will be submitted to the Minister so that he can report the facts to the House for consideration. In the light of the evidence, no responsible Minister can do other than extend the ban.
The hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) referred to the difference between the original compensation and the subsequent compensation paid in respect of slaughtered animals. The Minister obviously has personal sympathy with this point. It is a source of great difficulty for the farming community. My constituency immediately abuts the area in the Oswestry constituency which is infected, and many farmers in my constituency were affected. They now see prices rising week by week and they wonder how they will be able to restock.
I appreciate that this is a difficult problem to deal with. It is not as if there were a clear-cut line between the earlier compensation and the later compensation. It is difficult for the Minister to deal with this equitably, but great hardship will be caused in certain areas, particularly to farmers who were compensated at an early date. I do not think the Minister can do other than implement the undertaking that there should be replacement value so far as possible and that some effort should be made to bring about a more equitable solution.
One could carry on endlessly about the losses which have occurred because of This terrible epidemic. The consequential losses are very great. In many unsuspected areas one comes across cases in which people have been hit by the epidemic. Everyone must agree that it is the duty of this House and of the Minister to ensure as far as humanly possible that there cannot be an outbreak of this kind again from any ascertainable source. That is why it is important not only for the farming community but for the taxpayer that the ban on Argentine meat should remain for the foreseeable future.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I associate myself with other hon. Members in expressing sympathy with the Minister both for his personal bereavement and for being laid up as a result of an accident during this extremely testing time for him and his Ministry.
I add my word to hon. Members who lave appealed to him not to terminate the temporary ban on meat imports.
I appreciate only too well the considerations advanced by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). If the ban is made permanent, or if it is extended, it will do damage to international trade. We must face that. It may involve us in great complications and it may restrict the freedom of choice of consumers, and possibly raise prices. We must face that.
But may I direct the attention of the Minister to this aspect? I think I am right in saying that so far the principal r se has been in prices of beef. There is also a form of livestock which is most important in my constituency. I draw the attention of the Minister to the situation which faces the sheep industry. In these Supplementary Estimates there is an item of £1,750 million increase with a note which says:
The increase is due mainly to the higher guaranteed price determined after the 1967 Annual Review and to lower market prices.
It is very relevant in that context to read a brief extract from a letter I received from a constituent who is a sheep farmer on the Welsh Border. He wrote to me on 28th January:
I have just sold 209 fat lambs for which I received £7 19s. Od. each. These sheep averaged 53 lbs. dead. This works out at 3s.

per lb. This price includes any subsidy due. The guaranteed price for this week, agreed at last year's Price Review, was 3s. 5d. per lb! The Price Review is a farce!
As long ago as November, 1960, I received £8 14s. 0d. each for 54 lb. lambs.
It is possible that some good could come out of this terrible evil of foot-and-mouth outbreak. I should like the Minister to consider whether it would be possible in consultation with wholesalers and retailers in the meat trade for consumers and the public to be directed more to the buying of mutton and lamb from our own supplies and in that way helping the situation which the letter of my constituent reveals.
I ask the Minister not to bring the ban to an end. That would be regarded as a great injustice and also as a great illogicality. The illogicality cannot be better expressed than in the first paragraph of a resolution forwarded by Shropshire National Farmers' Union Executive to its headquarters. It says:
If there was no danger from imported meat why was the ban imposed in the first place? if there is danger, why is it being lifted now? Clearly one of these decisions is wrong.
That seems to be incontrovertible.
It is a misfortune that our two great primary industries, farming and coal mining, are represented almost exclusively by hon. Members on opposing sides of the House. That leads to a suspicion in this case that there may be a great political operation being conducted against the Minister. I beg the Minister not to believe that that is so. In my part of the world it is difficult to describe the indignation with which the replies to Questions on the ban last week were received. There is an extremely nonpolitical newspaper in my constituency which headed an article about this matter, in the largest type I have ever seen it use, with the words: "Beef Ban Row Boils".
I add my voice to what other hon. Members have said about the Committee of Inquiry. We shall regard as of great importance who the members of the committee are and equally what are its terms of reference. There will be great indignation if the terms of reference are not completely comprehensive, covering the past, and the future, and organisation. I have written to the Minister a number of letters about this. I apologise


for having harassed him during the critical period he has been through. There has been indignation in my part of the world, not only in the worst infected area but in the area just outside it in which I live. The criticism is that the organisation, not actually on infected farms but outside them, is insufficient. People want to feel that real directions are being given.
Those outside the infected area want to be told what they should do. I have had a letter from the chairman of my county council—who lives in the middle of the infected area—in which he says:
the most frequent grumble I heard is that there is lack of leadership from the top.
This is not a criticism of the Minister, but he also says:
A lot of people want an 'overlord' to direct the campaign against the plague.
And a county alderman who lives in my immediate area and not in the worst infected area, writes:
This should be treated as an operation of war. And as such a commander should be appointe
I hope that in settling the terms of reference and the personnel of the committee, particular care will be taken to have prior consultation with the local authorities and the police, about which I had an undertaking in an answer given to a Question.
My hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Temple) spoke about the widespread ramifying and consequential losses which have been incurred. I shall not repeat what other hon. Members have said. I content myself with drawing the Minister's attention to one industry which has not been specifically mentioned. I do this particularly as it is an industry for which the right hon. Gentleman has some personal responsibility. I refer to the forestry industry. Over a considerable area of Denbighshire, Cheshire and Shropshire, the effect of this outbreak has been to bring forestry operations to an end. This has had a very serious effect on some of the forestry contractors and co-operatives on whom the industry, to a large extent, relies. I have written to the Minister about this. I hope that he will take it from me that it is a serious matter.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) very rightly expressed his

concern for the agricultural workers. I endorse what he said. I want to read to the House a suggestion which has been made to me by a constituent and which I have forwarded to the Minister:
One possible way of farmers employing
farm workers
productively at this time is to do building alterations and building improvements. However, improvements are frustrated by legislation that prevents work starting under a farm improvement scheme until it has been inspected and passed by a Ministry officer. Would it be possible for the duration of the foot and mouth precautions for permission to be given to start subject to subsequent inspection?
The Minister was good enough to answer me by saying that the Ministry would do its best. I should be grateful if he would examine this possibility and see how far it has been possible to relax the restriction.
I add my voice to what other hon. Members have said about compensation. It was a real shock for farmers to learn that compensation was to be limited to market value. I also endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Sir J. Foster) said about taxation.
Finally, as we are discussing the Supplementary Estimates, I must say that what we would most like to see in these Supplementary Estimates, if it is not already there hidden somewhere where I have not been able to find it, is a large additional provision for research. Surely we must concentrate our efforts on finding a way of eradicating this scourge. If it is necessary for the existing organisation at Pirbright to be expanded, that is one thing on which there should be no stinting of public money.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: Almost exactly two hours ago my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) initiated this debate. I have seldom listened to a debate the tone of which was so high and which was so concentrated on the points at issue. Every hon. Member who has participated in the debate has sought to be constructive and to waste as little time as possible. I shall endeavour to follow suit.
On behalf of myself and of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I want to say how much we appreciate the fact that


the Minister has made the effort to be present with us tonight. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We all know the difficulties under which the Minister has been suffering. We are glad to see him here this evening. We take his presence as n indication of his great concern over this issue.
I shall seek to concentrate my remarks on drawing together under a few short headings the points which have been made. First, I come directly to a question which was first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West and which has been touched on by many ether hon. Members, namely, the independent inquiry which the Minister promised us on 4th December that he would be setting up. I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman about this matter earlier this month. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us tonight that he is setting up the inqury forthwith. There is great importance in getting the inquiry going now. As various of my lam. Friends have said, we want to get the inquiry started now while matters are still fresh in the minds of those concerned. There is no merit in delaying the inquiry. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something definite and precise tonight.
I share the view expressed by my hon. Friends that the inquiry should be independent—the Minister has said that it will be—and public. It could be argued that it will be necessary sometimes for the inquiry to go into private session. Thirdly, I think that the inquiry should Ix of a judicial nature. There have been so many issues raised in this outbreak that those who give evidence should be safeguarded in the fullest possible way. We want the inquiry to cast its net widely. All those who have felt anxious in relation to this epidemic should have the opportunity to give evidence. I have received many letters from people who feel anxious or worried. Some of these letters are highly critical. I have sent some of the letters to the Minister. In order to reassure people generally, the inquiry should be independent, as it will be, it should be public, and it should be judicial. If those three points are covered, and if the inquiry is set up at an early date, the Minister will be doing something of real value in getting things moving and securing clarification on a

number of issues which have worried many people.
I come now to a question which has been raised by several of my hon. Friends and on which I have written to the Minister. I refer to the question of supplementary compensation for those who suffered damage in the early stages. My hon. Friends representing areas in Cheshire and Shropshire, where most of the outbreaks have occurred, are particularly concerned, and rightly so. The Minister has given certain reassurances. Without wishing to be critical of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I must say that some of the answers he gave last week merely served to confuse the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has written to the Minister. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a clear indication that it is replacement value which is the general criterion on which he seeks to act. We hope that the position about supplementary compensation, a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) in particular referred, will be clarified tonight and that provision will be made for early payment.
I come next to the question of rehabilitation in the areas where the disease has made the most serious inroads. The Minister announced a £10 an acre ploughing subsidy. I am sure that he will agree that, although this could be valuable to some people, it will be of very limited value to many. I am glad that the Minister has taken steps to provide officers of the N.A.A.S. to assist with advice in these areas. I hope that they will be able, not only to give advice, but also to report back to the Minister on the need for any further assistance which may be necessary, particularly in the hard-hit areas, to get rehabilitation going. We shall be glad to hear of any further proposals the Minister has for definite assistance in rehabilitation. We all want these areas which have had such serious difficulties thrust upon them to be given the maximum help to get going again.
Practically every speaker has referred to the ban on the import of meat. Although a general degree of concern has been expressed—very reasonably and moderately—in this debate, if the Minister cannot give us some reassurance on this issue a strength of feeling will develop which will be very critical indeed. My


hon. Friends who have said that, if it were right to impose the import ban at the time that the Minister imposed it, it should be kept on until the committee of inquiry has reported have an overwhelming case. What we have ascertained during this outbreak has been the extreme virulence of this strain. If this has come about as a result of meat imports—presumably the reason for banning meat imports could only be that this was thought to be likely—clearly the disease could come in again in another consignment.
I do not think that the farming community could face an outbreak of such severity again. It has been a period of strain and severe losses. Many losses have not been compensated and may not be compensated, and it would be unfair to impose this on farmers again. I hope that the Minister can tell us that he will keep the import ban on at least until the Committee has reported. That is another reason for establishing it as early as possible. We are entitled to a very firm assurance from the Minister on this. I can see no justification for relaxing the ban at this time. I did not press the Minister to put it on in the first place, but when it was put on I accepted that there could well be reasons for it. I could not now accept that the position has so changed that we can relax it.
It is only fair to take up here a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who was, I think, the only hon. Member who sought to put the contrary view about the ban. He made a perfectly fair point about the consumer's position, which the Minister must take into full consideration. But if the hon. Member could have been here—I am sure that there is good reason why he cannot—I would have asked him if he is looking at the matter in the long-term interests of the consumer. If it is shown that the meat is causing our difficulty, we could have another serious outbreak, perhaps more serious, if the ban is lifted, and it would do away with a great deal more meat in this country than we might gain by its import.
One of my hon. Friends said that if we were to allow the meat in we must revert to a vaccination policy, and I think that he was on firm ground in

saying that. If we allow the meat in that means that we say that we are prepared to accept a degree of risk of infection. Is it then fair to the farmers to continue with the slaughter policy? If we are to change in that way, we should not do so until the Committee has reported.
I believe that the consumers of this country might well be safeguarded by the retention of the ban, so long as the Minister does his utmost to stimulate additional production here. The Minister may say that that will take some time, but I remind him of the figures I gave in the debate on 4th December, when I pointed out that over the past three years the annual figure of calf slaughterings had increased by more than the total number of cattle slaughtered in the epidemic. That is still true even today. If real encouragement were given we could by saving so many of those calves, save as many cattle, and within 12 months or 18 months to two years we could be producing this amount again. I hope that the Minister will give us a firm reassurance about this.
I recognise that the Minister is in a difficult position over making payment for consequential losses. But that is yet one more reason for not taking risks by allowing additional meat to come in again until we are quite sure about it following the Committee's report. Consequential losses have been heavy for many people. My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) was absolutely right in what he said about this. Many cases of consequential losses have been quoted, and the Minister has had many details sent to him. As an example, I shall mention briefly the case of one of my constituents who was doing his utmost to co-operate in preventing the spread of the disease. He refused to transport food from one of his farms to another, although he was entitled to do so, and because of this he had to change his method of feeding entirely, and lost a large number of cattle as a result. He was worse off than if his cattle had caught the disease, because he received no compensation. He told me that he lost at least £2,500. The Minister told me that he could not agree to any payment because that would set a precedent, and in the present circumstances I accept that. But the inquiry must look into the question of


consequential losses. We must see that there is fairness between all concerned.
I am glad that so many hon. Members have paid tribute to what has been done by the Minister's officials, vets and others in the very difficult circumstances in which they have been working. I add my tribute to their work and the way in which they have carried it out. I have never been critical of them in any sense, and I am happy to reaffirm that.
I should also like to pay tribute to those in other organisations who have cooperated so readily when called on to do so by the Minister, such as those concerned with racing, hunting, shooting and fishing. At an earlier date there was criticism of some people who had not responded in one particular aspect, but by and large people have co-operated very well and deserve every credit.
Many points arise from the debate. There is much more that I could say, but I do not want to delay because I know how many other subjects hon. Members want to raise. I have dealt with the main issues. We on this side of the House have supported the Minister throughout over the maintenance of the slaughter policy. We have done so consistently, but there are people who are critical of it. I have had many letters about it, as has the Minister, I am sure. I have always supported the retention of the policy, but we are entitled to see that the inquiry will be set up, that it will be high-powered, fiat it will look at every aspect of the matter and will report fully to the Minister and the country on the continuance of the slaughter policy. If it is shown that there are other factors arising since the Gowers Report which should lead to a change of policy, let us have a full debate. Until we receive such a report, I continue to believe that the slaughter policy is right, subject to the points I have made.
The points made in the debate are significant. Many people have suffered severe losses; the figure of £29 million is an indication of the direct expenditure involved, although, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, there has been much additional expenditure which cannot be covered by Ministry help and compensation, and which must be borne not only by the agricultural community but by all the people in rural areas.
We should recognise that, and recognise it by seeking to prevent a recurrence of

this dreadful outbreak, which we hope will soon be over. We all recognise that it is not over yet and could flare up again if the restrictions are relaxed.
I repeat my congratulations to all who have worked so hard to keep the epidemic in check, and ask the Minister to give us clear answers on the points raised and to reassure us about the early setting up of the inquiry and its composition, and about meat imports, which are of great concern to all our farmers.

8.8 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): First, may I thank the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and all hon. Members who have said such kind personal things to me. It is my duty to be here. This is a very important debate and it has given me pleasure because, for the reasons mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, it has achieved a high level. Hon. Members have been frank and constructive. There has been no party slanging match, and all hon. Members, whatever their beliefs, have been objective while believing passionately in their points of view. That is right, and therefore it has been a very fine debate.
I have made careful notes of every speech. I always try to do so, but I have probably made more copious notes in this debate than in any agricultural discussion—and I have attended many over a very long period. I will follow up later those points I do not answer.
Some of the points raised have been elaborated into a major argument and there has been a common theme in the debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for concentrating on the major aspects. On the other hand, it is right that I should pick up some of the smaller points. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has had to leave—I understand why—raised a question about the Oxenden outbreak. It is still under investigation and as yet we do not know the answer.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) referred to the work at Pirbright and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) also referred to the importance of research. It is, indeed, right to stress that importance. I have on many occasions paid tribute to


the work at Pirbright. It is one of the great research centres of the world and much its work provides experience for other countries which has always been welcomed. An experiment in relation to infection on birds' feet has been done at Pirbright. That is only one example of its work.
I, too, want to pay tribute to what has been done in this epidemic. I am glad that hon. Members have paid tribute to the work of my staff. Of course we have had criticisms but that is only natural. Mistakes will be made in any organisation and we must learn from them. But I add my tribute to the work of my staff and their administration and also to those involved outside the farming community. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the co-operation given by racing interests and I add my tribute to his. I also thank those interested in hunting, shooting and fishing. They have all co-operated, as has the general public.
I want also to pay tribute to the Army. On my visit, with some other hon. Members, to Chester and another centre, I was very impressed by the efficiency of our Army colleagues, as I was by that of the police and the fire brigades. I also pay tribute to those doing the contracting work and those who have had the distasteful task of slaughtering—a terrible job. I pay tribute also to my own veterinary staff and to those veterinary officers who came from abroad to help. The response has been magnificent.
Finally, I pay tribute to the farmers themselves and to the farm workers and their families, not only those affected by the disease on their own farms, but indeed the whole farming community. We have had wonderful co-operation from them.
This epidemic has involved us in substantial extra cost to the Exchequer. The epidemic is still continuing but the number of outbreaks has sharply declined from the peak of 490 in the week ended 28th November to 21 in the week ended 23rd January. So far, there have been only 15 outbreaks in the week which will end at midnight tonight. Altogether, 18 counties have been involved but seven have now been freed from infected area restrictions and three more are likely to be freed next week. To date, there have

been 2,319 outbreaks, and 205,400 cattle, 98,400 sheep, 113,000 pigs and 36 goats have had to be slaughtered up to midnight last night. That shows the size of this operation. It has been a national tragedy. The compensation already authorised amounted to £25,195,000 by midnight last night. It is not yet possible to estimate the incidental expenses and the extra staff costs but these will be considerable.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of restocking, which is my main concern now. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of rehabilitation and restocking. I should like to say a word about getting the farms going again. I am determined that this should go as smoothly and quickly as possible. But the duration and scale of the epidemic and its concentration in such an intensive dairying area bring special problems. Hon. Members have highlighted many of them and indicated where there should be emphasis and where policy should be directed.
First, there is the need to match the supply of animals with the likely demand. This is particularly so with dairy cattle. It is being dealt with on a number of fronts. For example, there is the £10 per acre ploughing grant which I announced in December. I agree that it will not help everyone—we never thought that it would—but it will make some contribution and it was welcomed. It will help those with suitable land to spread their replacement purchases of stock over a period and in the meantime will provide both work and income from cash crops.
I have also made arrangements to establish advisory centres and to augment the staff of the Ministry's advisory services in the affected areas in order to provide a full and individual service for the farmers whose stock has been slaughtered. Advice will be given on the most effective and economic ways of bringing the farms back into production. This advice will include information regarding alternative livestock enterprises and the economics of milk production and will also help many farmers to return to dairying in a gradual and planned manner. The advisory services are also encouraging other farmers elsewhere to hold and make available, when the time


comes, animals useful for restocking, such as dairy type calves and cows which could do another lactation.
The plan to create a pool of livestock for sale to the affected farmers, recently put into operation by the National Farmers' Union, should also do a very great deal to ensure adequate supplies and I want to pay tribute to the N.F.U. Its offices in the areas affected will hold lists of stock available for sale both by private treaty and at special auctions which will be arranged. My Department is doing all it can to help with this scheme. The members of my agricultural executive committees and their district committees in every county, together with the Ministry's local officers, are helping the N.F.U. to ensure that every livestock farmer not only knows of the existence of the scheme and its objectives, but also the ways in which he can contribute to it. The organisation of the machinery for this is a great task and the Ministry is helping in every possible way. For example, it is making available staff, where necessary, and its teleprinter network throughout the country is being supplied free of charge. This should help to ensure that the Union's register, which must contain up to the minute information on available stock if it is to be effective, will be amended with an absolute minimum of delay as stock are offered for sale and sold.
There are several ways in which affected farmers are being helped with the capital that they will require. There are the compensation payments made by the Ministry for the slaughtered animals. Under the Act these are based on the value of the stock at the time of slaughter and it is fair to say that on that basis they have not been ungenerous.
I know that there has been an argument about what my Parliamentary Secretary said the other day in relation to the question of compensation at replacement values and market values. He said:
We do not pay compensation at replacement values but at market values. As the hon. Member knows, we are carrying forward the first valuation and we are making a concession there, but we cannot pay at replacement value.
Later he said, when pressed further:
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that the situation is improving.

I repeat that there is no room for complacency yet, although we are glad that there has been this big drop in the number of cases. We cannot pay replacement value. We are carefully considering the question of the difference between the compensation paid now and that which was paid at the beginning of the outbreak."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 381–2.]
I assure hon. Members that we are looking at this very carefully. But, as hon. Members will know, there are other Departments besides my own involved in this. I am looking at it and I have noted carefully what has been said by many hon. Members today.

Sir J. Foster: What did the Parliamenary Secretary mean by "carrying forward"?

Mr. Peart: Carrying forward the first valuation. He said that we are making a concession but we cannot pay replacement value. I am having discussions about this. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned this later and I give the assurance that I shall speed this up.
Some of the difficult questions about taxation, including the effect of taxation on compensation, are still under consideration, and I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly. I have also been able to make arrangements for paying grant on account under various improvement schemes. These arrangements apply to the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Hill Land Improvement Scheme, the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Schemes, the Field Drainage and Water Supply Grants, the Ploughing Grants Scheme, the Small Farms Scheme, the Grassland Renovation Scheme and to grants for orchard grubbing. In this and other ways the Ministry is encouraging farmers to take this opportunity to get on with the improvements or changes of system from which their farms can benefit. I want to pay tribute to the help that many organisations connected with farming are extending to farmers who have been hit by the disease. For example, the banks and other lending institutions have promised a sympathetic response to requests for loans. The Country Landowners' Association has asked its land-owner members to extend sympathetic treatment, where necessary, to tenants who have lost their stock. The breed societies are especially helping farmers who have lost pedigree stock to find replacements.
On the question of consequential losses I can assure hon. Gentlemen that this is an extremely difficult matter. I know that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates this. I fully understand the concern expressed about the many losses incurred by large numbers of people inside and outside the livestock industry as a consequence of the epidemic. It has been suggested that the Government should pay compensation and cover loss of earnings by farmers and farm workers and losses caused by deterioration of feedingstuffs on affected farms.
I cannot accept the principle of compensation from the Exchequer for such losses. I know hon. Members have pressed me to do this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazen) raised this matter especially in relation to farm labour. But loss of wages is another form of consequential loss, and while I have much sympathy with these people, especially with any worker whose income or job is in jeopardy, I cannot accept that we should pay compensation for such losses.
I should like to say to my hon. Friend that I am keeping in close touch with the way in which the situation is developing, and so far the evidence suggests that the problem is not as serious as some people seem to think. My latest information is that in Cheshire about 40 agricultural workers have registered with the Ministry of Labour for employment.
I do not believe—and this was raised by the hon. Member for Norfolk. South-West (Mr. Hawkins)—that the majority of the more far-sighted dairy farmers will easily accept the loss of their skilled stockmen. I fully realise that this is largely a question of having enough money available to tide them over. It must not be forgotten that farmers have received substantial sums of compensation and insurance money. In addition, the banks and other lending bodies have been extremely sympathetic. Quite apart from this, we have been doing our best to provide alternative work of one kind or another. I have mentioned the activities of the C.L.A. It has asked its landowner members to give temporary employment to people in estate work, if possible. My own Department has been employing many people on the disease control operations. Bodies like the Forestry Commission are helping with temporary

employment, wherever possible. I hope that the measures will be of some help.
I want to say a word about the brucellosis scheme. This was not mentioned but this is an opportunity for farmers to restock in such a way as to allow their herds to qualify for registration under the Brucellosis Scheme with a minimum of delay. The Ministry's veterinary officers will visit farmers and advise them how best to go about this. I mention this because I wish to make it as a statement which will be given publicity. Restocking with animals blood tested at an appropriate stage may speed up the qualifying period for accredited status of individual herds. It is not possible to make Cheshire an accredited area, simply because there is not at present any reservoir of brucella-free animals for replacement.
In this and in every other way possible my Ministry will do all it can to help restore to full production farms hit by the epidemic. As hon. Members will know, I have written personally to every farmer who has lost his stock to assure him of this. I enclosed a leaflet setting out the ways in which we are helping and the ways in which he can help himself. I am anxious that he should be given all the information possible. A great cry during the difficult period of the epidemic was that we were not getting much of our information across to the individual farmer. In this period of rehabilitation and restocking it is vital that we should get information across to individual farmers.
I am sure that with patience, determination and good sense on the part of everyone, we may look forward to these farms again making their important contribution to the agricultural industry.
Many other specific points of detail were raised by hon. Members and I will deal with them before I come to the controversial subject of imports. Mention has been made of an inquiry. I think that this is important. I have announced this, but I cannot announce the composition of the body I propose. Many hon. Members have said that they hope that it will be set up quickly. The outbreak will then be fresh in their minds and they will be able to act from their experience of it. I have given the assurance that I will act speedily but, as has


been mentioned, we must get a good chairman and good members.

Mr. Godber: This is an important point and I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not able to announce the composition now. We hope the announcement will be made as soon as possible and that the Minister will accept the three criteria I mentioned. It should be independent; it should be public and it should be judicial.

Mr. Peart: As to whether it is judicial, assume the right hon. Gentleman is thinking in terms of it being presided ever by a judge. I am not sure whether this would necessarily be best. I can envisage a chairman of a commission not being a judge. He would have high qualities and I am sure the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who is a lawyer himself, would agree.
On the other hand, there may well be a legal specialist such as a judge who would have the highest qualities. I would not like to commit myself to be restricted purely to a member of the legal profession. Hon. Members will probably agree with me.
I agree that it should be independent and it should have wide powers just as the Gowers Committee had. Gowers made a full coverage. It took a long time but it did make a thorough investigation. We want the best quality of men and they will want freedom to come to conclusions quite independently of the Government or any organisation. I will be looking very carefully at personnel, and I give the assurance that I will act quickly.

Mr. Temple: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, he has given assurances that three matters will be dealt with—taxation, valuation and the question of the inquiry. Would he give the assurance that he will not hesitate to set it up before the epidemic is finished?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give that assurance, but I will do my best to do it as quickly as possible. It is a question of getting the right personnel. The right hon. Gentleman, who has been a Minister, knows that often when one has a suitable person in mind it is not always possible to get him. Hon. Members

must appreciate the difficulties which a Minister has.
On the question of the inquiry being in public, it may be necessary to have some of this evidence in public. Indeed, I hope members of the public will be free to give evidence, particularly those people who have had experience in the areas. Already I have given assurance to some hon. Members who have written to me. If they send material now I will see that it is kept and forwarded to the Committee of Inquiry when it is set up.

Mr. More: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the Committee of Inquiry, would he say a word about the terms of reference?

Mr. Peart: I cannot do so at this stage. I have been asked specifically how the members would be picked, whether it would be a judicial inquiry and whether it would be independent. I have been forthcoming on that matter. The terms of reference will be announced when I make the announcement.
I come to what, after all, has been the controversial part of the debate—the import ban. I have noted carefully what all hon. Members have said. It is true, as the right hon. Member for Grantham said, that there is a volume of opinion among people who feel that I should continue the ban beyond the period which I announced. There was one exception—my hon. Friend the Member for Frith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). I should like to take the opportunity of saying something about the ban on the importation of meat and offal from all countries except the very few countries where foot-and-mouth is unknown or which have a long history of freedom from it.
When I announced on 4th December the Government's decision to introduce this change in our import arrangements, I explained that it was a purely temporary measure—the right hon. Member for Grantham admits that he did not press me to introduce it—designed to avoid a catastrophic overstrain of our veterinary resources which would result from a new primary outbreak while we were still struggling to bring the epidemic under control. Although it had not been possible to trace the origin of the epidemic and the change did not imply that the epidemic was necessarily caused by im-


ported meat, the Government considered that it was imperative to minimise the risk of any new infection from any source while the emergency was being brought under control.
The temporary changes in import arrangements then introduced have caused difficulty and disruption not only for our overseas suppliers but also for traders and consumers. But they have been accepted on the basis that they were a short-term measure justified by the emergency and would last until the epidemic was brought under control and would, in any case, be reviewed in three months. I said this and I made my announcement to the House. The Government just cannot go back on their pledges. I am prepared to listen very carefully to the arguments. I will read HANSARD tomorrow, and I will bear in mind what has been said. But I gave pledges then. I made a statement publicly to the House.
I sympathise very fully, however, with the farming community in their anxiety that we should do everything we reasonably can to ensure that we never again have to face a major epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. This is why we decided that once we were free from the immediate preoccupation of coping with the epidemic we should set up an independent committee to examine both our policy and arrangements for dealing with foot-and-mouth disease.

Mr. Hooson: Mr. Hooson rose—

Mr. Peart: I am putting the argument. I will give way in a moment.
However, to continue the present arrangements on imports until the committee had reported, as some hon. Members have pressed me to do, would be contrary to the basis on which those arrangements were introduced and accepted. It would be a new act of policy which would prejudice the questions which we shall have to consider following the committee's report.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery argues that the situation has changed since then. But he must appreciate that I made the announcement. I told the House, the farming community, the traders and other people involved that it was a temporary ban.

Mr. Hooson: There is nothing in what the Minister said in the House which

seems to me to give pledges. What I should like him to say is whether he gave pledges to the Argentine Government and, if so, what they were.

Mr. Peart: To all our meat suppliers I made the same statement that I made in the House. Hon. Members are now asking me to reconsider that policy. I have said that I will look carefully at any argument that has been put forward tonight, as I must, but this is the policy of the Government, and that was our pledge.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Will the Minister accept my suggestion of making the advisability or otherwise of continuing the ban one of the terms of reference for the inquiry?

Mr. Peart: It may well be that after we appoint the committee and discuss the terms of reference we shall consider the whole question of meat imports. We must remember that Gowers examined the subject of meat imports, but it could well be one of the terms of reference.

Mr. More: The Minister must realise the seriousness of what he is saying. If he persists in the decision he now appears to be announcing, he simply will not be forgiven.

Mr. Peart: I made the decision to bring in the ban because I was afraid of the strain on my veterinary service if there should be another primary outbreak. I told the House that, and I was not pressed on it by hon. Members. Indeed, I was praised for bringing in the ban. I detected no criticism. In fact, no other Governments have ever done this before. Hon. Members are now saying that we should change this policy, and I have said that I will listen carefully to their points of view and arguments. I have made a statement on policy, and that is the Government's decision.

Mr. Godber: This is a very serious matter. The Minister has said that he will look at what has been said: will he look at the argument, advanced by several hon. Members tonight, that if it were logical to stop imports in December it is just as logical to retain the ban until a committee has reported? We have been confronted with an epidemic the virulence of which we have not before seen.


The Minister says that no other Governments have done this before, but he will realise that no other Governments have been faced with such a virulent epidemic before.
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point about his pledge. In hearing him, I cannot help feeling that he has been away from the House for a week or two, because during that time we have heard from the Government of various broken pledges— [HON. MEMBERS: "Shoddy."] No, it is not shoddy, because if the right lion. Gentleman is relating his argument to a pledge, and if the pledge has already produced problems, we are entitled to ask him to look at it again.
I understood the Minister that while the ban was temporary it would continue until such time as he was reassured about the virulence of the epidemic. He cannot be reassured until he has had a report from the committee he is to set up. Will he please look at the matter? There will be the gravest indignation throughout the country if he cannot give reassurance on this. I am trying to keep my remarks temperate, but I assure the Minister that vie feel very strongly indeed about this matter.

Sir Clive Bossom: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who is pressing him to lift the ban? If it is the butchers, I believe that they are being much too alarmist.

Mr. Peart: It is not a question of anyone pressing me at all, but of the policy I announced to the House. I announced this temporary ban—and it was a temporary ban—and I said that it could be reviewed again. I mentioned a period of three months. It was announced as a temporary ban, and it was accepted. This is known outside the House—there is no question of hiding anything. But hon. Members now say that they want me to have a permanent ban—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."]—Well, some hon. Members argue that. Some want a permanent ban. There are some who say that as long as there is a risk from those countries where the disease has not been wiped out, we should keep the ban on imports, but that has never been done before.

Mr. More: Mr. More rose—

Mr. Peart: I have said that I will lock at the arguments carefully, but that

is the Government's policy and hon. Members should know it. After all, there are important factors to be borne in mind. Of course I recognise that we have to consider the position of our own home producers. I brought in a temporary ban, but now I am being pressed to extend it. I have said that I will carefully look at the arguments, but the policy of the Government remains.

Mr. More: Other hon. Members are asking specifically that the ban should be extended until the Committee has reported and come to a decision.

Mr. Peart: I cannot go beyond that.

Orders of the Day — POLICE MANPOWER

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: As a Member for a Cheshire constituency, I listened with interest to the whole debate on foot-and-mouth disease, but I felt unable to participate because I wanted to raise the subject of police manpower. Having heard the reply of the Minister of Agriculture and as one whose constituency is concerned about foot-and-mouth, I hope that the reply which I have from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department about police manpower will be more acceptable.
The Supplementary Estimate for the police totals about £10 million and is not large compared with some other Estimates which we are considering tonight, but it is certainly important. The point to make at the outset is that nine-tenths of it come under the heading of grants to police authorities, due largely to increased police strength and increased manpower, and the majority of the rest, about £900,000, is related to unit beat policing, and those are the two matters which I should like to consider.
I think that I am right—and I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary would tell me—in saying that the increase this year is about 4,000 men, and presumably that is the main basis for the Supplementary Estimate. I welcome that increase. It was probably expected, because at the beginning of the year we had a report on manpower from the Police Advisory Board, and it would have been sad indeed if, during the year following the publication of that report, there had been no increase in manpower.
But that does not tell the whole story, because that figure must be put into perspective and set against the background of the present deficiency in police manpower and particularly in the context of the fact that during the rest of the financial year there will be the new restrictions on police recruiting which were announced by the Home Secretary following the Prime Minister's statement earlier in the year. That statement and those restrictions do not come into force at the beginning of the next financial year—and I should be ruled out of order for mentioning them if they did—but are related to a period commencing 1st January, this year, and therefore to the period to which the Supplementary Estimates relate.
I turn first to the general position of police manpower. I am sure that one can do no better than quote what is one of the first statements in the Report of the Advisory Body on Police Manpower, which says:
It is well known that the Police Service in England and Wales has for years suffered a chronic shortage of police.
In the year to which that relates, the deficiency was in the region of 15,000 men. During 1966, the establishments were reviewed and, on the whole, reviewed upwards. Whereas there was a slight net increase in strength of some 1,600 in 1966, and whereas there has been a considerable increase in the year under review, nevertheless my assessment of the present deficiency is that it is something in the region of between 13,000 and 14,000.
That deficiency is not spread evenly. It is probably true to say that more than a third of it relates entirely to the Metropolitan area, where I believe that the police force is some 5,000 under strength. I should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how much of the increase in this Estimate which has occurred in the last 12 months relates to the Metropolitan area. I have a feeling that it is in the nature of a fifth of the total sum.
The position remains that, despite the increase which has occurred, our police forces are still desperately short of staff. If one takes the Metropolitan area, according to the Report published last year, the number of police in the area rose by some 2,500 in the last 10 years,

bringing the total up to a little under 20,000. In that same 10-year period, crime within the Metropolitan area went up by 160 per cent., and the detection rate dropped to just over 20 per cent.
Taking the figures outside London, at a time when crime has increased by 150 per cent. in ten years, when road traffic has increased by over 100 per cent., still there are 32 city and police forces in existence, according to the 1966 figures—some may have been amalgamated by now—which were between 10 and 20 per cent. deficient in strength as against establishment.
The police are, and always have been, in the forefront of the fight against crime. It has been said many times that the likelihood of detection is the greatest deterrent to crime. To an extent, it is a cliché to repeat that statement. However, the likelihood of detection depends, to a large extent, on the number of policemen available for the fight against crime. It is a fight which is undertaken on behalf of society, and one which the police must win, in the interests of everyone. Over recent years, there have been outbreaks of violent crime, where people have been prepared to wage war against society. It is essential that society should be seen to win the war. The fundamental duty of the State is to maintain law and order within the country and see that there are adequate police for that purpose.
I turn from the general deficiency in our police forces to the other half of the argument which I wish to raise. In view of what I have said, any reduction in the number of police or in the rate of expansion envisaged to be likely is a false economy. Whatever the cost may be of providing adequate police forces, it is nothing compared with the cost of crime, both in the monetary sense and in the sense of the misery that it causes. Yet these figures cover over the fact that the expansion of the police force is now being deliberately restricted.
We have had two circulars sent out by the Home Office which are relevant to these estimates. They show that as from 1st January this year the Home Office intend that the ceiling of the net increase in the police over a period of some 15 months should be limited to a maximum of 1,200 people. It means that the Government, as a matter of policy, have


decided to accept what is really a permanently understaffed police force.
If one looks at how they propose to control the increment, one finds that in those forces which are no less than 10 per cent. deficient, no increase is to be allowed; that in those which are between 10 and 20 per cent. deficient in strength, only an increase equivalent to 1 per cent. of their establishment is to be allowed; and that in those over 20 per cent. deficient, only an increase of 2 per cent. in their establishment. The position is that the Government seem to have said that in large areas of this country a deficiency in the police of something between 15 to 20 per cent. under the required strength is to be accepted.
At the same time—this comes within tile same estimates, since we are dealing, with general police expenditure—they make the point that there is to be no increase in either civilians or additional traffic wardens to take over part of the duties of the police.
I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House, but I would like to relate those figures in concrete terms to the position in the Metropolitan area of London where the police force is sadly understaffed. In 1967 I understand there was a most welcome increase in the Metropolitan Police Force of some 800 in number. If that rate of increase had been continued throughout the next 15 months, on that basis one could have assumed something in the region of 1,000 net additional men in the size of the Metropolitan Police Force, still nowhere bringing it up to its establishment strength, but a very necessary and successful increase.
Since it is possible that the increase which has occurred has just removed the Metropolitan police from being over 20 per cent. deficient in numbers to being a shade of a percentage under 20 pe7 cent. deficient in numbers, it means that under the proposals of the Government any increase in the Metropolitan police would of necessity be limited to a total number of 250.
The next point I want to make is about the effect of taking a ceiling of this kind This is an important point and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the force of it. It has been put to me that one has had over

the last 18 months or so an extremely good period of recruitment into the police force, which has been gaining momentum. Maybe due to the economic policies which have occurred and the effect on employment in this country there has been quite a surge of demand of people coming into the police force. If we turn that tap off by deliberately ceasing to encourage the expansion, it will be very difficult to recover again when we decide to set out to increase the police force.
At a time when, due to the Government's economic policies—and I am not commenting on them but making this as a statement of fact—there is likely to be a considerable contraction in the size of the Armed Forces, it is unfortunate that it has been decided to reduce recruitment to the police force, because one would have thought that personnel from the Armed Forces would be suitable for such recruitment. The Police Federation takes the view that there are many men with excellent capabilities who may be lost for all time because of this provision.
Accepting the Government's policy, may I ask whether the Government consulted the Police Advisory Board about this restriction on recruitment, and the method by which it is to be achieved? This Board was specifically set up to advise the Home Secretary on police matters. It recently reported on manpower. It contains representatives of the county councils, of the A.M.C., of the chief constables, of the superintendents, and of the Police Federation. Secondly, did the Government seek any advice from the various professional police bodies about the best way of imposing these restrictions on recruitment? Because of this restriction on recruitment, even if the target is reached it will be the lowest increase in the police force in all but one year during the last six.
I believe that the big strides which have been made in expanding the police force in recent years are in jeopardy. It is a question of better recruiting, of less wastage, and of relieving the police of duties that can be performed by others. To a large extent, these three matters are tied together. The wastage is caused by the extra long hours and the conditions under which the police


have to work. The wastage will cease only if we can increase the overall number of policemen. I welcome, as I am sure the Under-Secretary of State does, the fact that much has been done to stop the police doing jobs such as court usher, which was never a suitable job for an active policeman, but I regret that the Government are not prepared to spend more money on employing additional civilians in the police force, as has happened over recent months.
I am glad that the unit beat police system has apparently escaped the axe. How many additional radios have been provided? Are we getting near the figure of 12,000 which the Government said was the likely figure at the end of this accounting period? How many additional cars have been provided?
I conclude by quoting figures which I believe are significant. On two consecutive days last week-end there were reports by the Chief Constable of Manchester about the crime rate there over the previous 12 months, and by the acting Chief Constable of Lancashire on the crime rate in the county. The Manchester figures showed an increase of 11·2 per cent. The Lancashire County figures showed a decrease of 11 per cent. over the equivalent period. The Acting Chief Constable put it down to a large degree to the success of the unit beat police system, and the rise in morale which it occasioned throughout the police force. I welcome the fact that police numbers have increased in the last twelve months, but I greatly regret that, one of the first actions of the new Home Secretary, who was for many years advisor to the Police Federation, should have been to limit the expansion which is so badly needed.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) on this subject. At a time when the functions of the State increase so greatly into welfare, economics, education and all the numerous matters—one does not criticise this—in which the State is nowadays active, it is easy to forget that, basically, to ensure the happiness and wellbeing of its inhabitants, the State has two prime duties: first, to defend the country from threats without and to see that its defences are sound, and, second, to maintain the

Queen's peace within and to see that law and order is kept and the Queen's subjects can go about their daily lives free from the threat which a well-established and active criminal community can constitute to the ordinary peaceful citizen.
One of the striking and deplorable things about the cuts recently announced by the Government is that they have fallen more than anywhere on defence from without and now, as we have learned from my hon. Friend, on security from crime within. For the first time, in the last two years, the police have seemed by enormous effort to be gaining slightly the upper hand in the war against crime, and it would be an absolute disaster if they were to be attacked now in their numbers or morale. An attack in their numbers is an attack also in their morale —

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting on to the next series of Estimates. He can deal only with those at present before the House, which do not encompass the cuts announced in the House last week.

Mr. Grieve: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall endeavour to get back on to the straight and narrow path from which I have strayed.
The position is illustrated by some figures given tonight in the Evening Standard, which show the appalling degree and strength of crime in the London area. Last year nearly £20 million was stolen by criminals in the London area, in the form of cash or property. It amounted to £19,952,274, of which only £1,949,312 was recovered. That is a ridiculously small amount and there can be no doubt that, if the police were better manned, they would have a far better chance of recovering property taken in this way.
Another factor which appears in that newspaper is that over one murder a week was committed in London in 1967. These are compelling figures and show the necessity for the police to be manned to the limit of the establishment.
The figures for the whole country show the same trend. Only 24·3 per cent. of indictable offences committed in 1967 were cleared up. That is a degree better than the previous year, when 22·3 per cent. were cleared up. There has been


a slight improvement, therefore, in the war which the police are fighting on our behalf against crime.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Tavene): The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the figures for the country as a whole. I believe that he was just quoting the figures for London.

Mr. Grieve: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was quoting the London figures. The country-wide figures are somewhat greater; 40·2 per cent. of these cases were cleared up in 1966, less than 50 per cent. of the total, while in London it was less than a quarter of the total.
This is no criticism of the police, who have been greatly handicapped over the years in recruitment and the resources that have been available to them. One of the duties of the Government—and, in so far as it is possible, of the legislature as a whole—is to see that the police are properly manned and up to strength in their war against crime. These figures show the gravity of the situation.
I have quoted the figures for last year from the Evening Standard of property recovered. In 1966, more than £21 million worth of property was stolen and less than £4 million worth was recovered —and, of that, £1½ million was accounted for in respect of pictures from the Dulwich Art Gallery, which puts a rather artificial level on the extent of the property recovered. This is, therefore, not a time when recruitment for the Police Force should be in any way kept down or artificially reduced.
In 1966 the police were greatly under strength. Figures for the Metropolitan area have already been quoted. I have from the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary for 1966 the figures for the whole country showing various deficiencies in strength; less than 2 per cent. in two county forces and two borough forces, between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. in six county forces and nine city and borough forces, between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. in 14 county forces and 15 city and borough forces, between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. in 17 county forces and 32 city and borough forces, between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. in five county forces and four city and

borough forces, between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. in one county force and three city and borough forces and more than 30 per cent. in no less than four county forces and two city and borough forces.
These figures speak for themselves more eloquently than any amount of speech making. They show that the Police Force in Britain in 1966 was grievously under strength and that a great effort is required to bring it up to strength.
The problem is not only an immediate one of bringing the police forces up to strength to combat the crime wave as it exists at present to a degree which is inimical to the maintenance of the Queen's peace. It is also vitally important for the future because the recruit of today is the detective inspector of the day after tomorrow. Unless recruitment for the police forces continues at a proper level, not only shall we not have the numbers necessary today to pursue the criminals, but the day after tomorrow and for many years to come we shall suffer the results of not having had recruits in 1968–69 who will become the senior officers in five, 10 or 15 years' time.
An attack on the numbers of the police force at a time when it is vitally necessary that they should be kept up is an attack not only on their numbers but on their morale. The police as much as any of the Armed Forces depend for their success, in the constant war they are having to wage against crime, on morale. Nothing succeeds in a force more than success, success properly and well earned. If the numbers are to be cut down and they are treated as one of the necessary social organisations and institutions which has to suffer every time the Government is in economic difficulty, they will consider that they are not receiving the treatment necessary to them as the force which protects the lives, liberties and property of all citizens.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I have been interested in the hon. Member's criticism that we should not cut defence spending. If that had been so and cuts were not made, they would have to fall more heavily on the sector of services in this country. Does not the hon. Member think that it inconsistent to call for general economy and yet for particular expenditure? During the night he and his


colleagues will be calling for more expenditure. How do they think economies can be made?

Mr. Grieve: I have a feeling that if I sought to answer the hon. Member Mr. Speaker would call me to order. It is in defence outside and keeping law and order within the country that we ought last, not first, to look for economies.

9.17 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: When the House is discussing Supplementary Estimates it is usual to quiz the Government about whether they are spending too much money, but this evening I ask the Minister to look at the other side of this coin and to reassure the House that police equipment is not being skimped in any way for financial reasons.
Every hon. Member who has spoken this evening and everyone who speaks about the police points out what a difficult job they have in combating organised and sophisticated criminals. We do not want to see the policeman, as it were, on a red bicycle chasing a bandit in an E-type Jaguar. The police must have all the equipment they need. In my constituency there is located the headquarters of the reorganised Hampshire and Isle of Wight police. Reorganisation of this type, from which we all hope for great results, is pointless unless the men are provided with all the gear they need.
Turning to manpower, I notice that there is in the Supplementary Estimates a heading for increased rates of pay and additional staff. Can the Minister assure the House that the pay, allowances and pensions at the end of service are adequate to recruit, not only the numbers required for the police force—and still required—but also men of the high calibre needed for a modern police force?
What special arrangements are being made for additional numbers of police now that the T.A.V.R. III is to be reduced and civil defence put into cold storage? Mr. Speaker would soon rule me out of order if I were to seek to explain, even for one moment, how much I disagree with these decisions on the T.A.V.R. III and civil defence. One of the consequences which the Government will have to face is that in any serious

emergency, either in peace or in war, a greater number of police will be required to fill the gap left by these economies.
Finally, are any special arrangements being made for men demobilised from the Armed Forces to be accepted into the police force under conditions which will guarantee some preservation of their seniority as regards pay and conditions?

9.20 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I have always found most Estimates, and Supplementary Estimates in particular, singularly uninformative about the amounts which Parliament is asked to authorise. These are no exception. I regard it as the first duty of the Government to have at heart the interests of law and order. Any economy made in pursuing that duty should normally be regarded as a false economy. When this document was published on 30th November last, I was delighted to learn that police forces were to have extra provision made for them which, in the interests of law and order, in view of the crime wave, and in view of the increased responsibilities placed upon the police, it is only right should be made.
Under Class III, Vote 5, increases in expenditure in respect of the ordinary provisions with regard to the police are to be no less than £5,330,010. Page 4 of the Supplementary Estimates makes it clear that special attention is to be given to unit beat policing. An extra sum of £330,010 is to be provided for the purchase of cars on behalf of police authorities. This amount, felicitously enough, comes under Subhead Z, so these cars can be referred to in the appropriate manner.
Naturally enough, I wondered what was to happen to this Supplementary Estimate, of which so little detail had been given, when it was announced that certain cuts were to be made. We learned from the somewhat cryptic description of the cuts to be made in Home Office Estimates that they were to be phased over the next two financial years. Therefore, it would not be in order for us to discuss those cuts in isolation.
However, we have the advantage of being able to obtain from the Library the Home Office circulars which explain,


up to a point—and, let us be fair, in considerable detail—Home Office expenditure now and in the future. Therefore, fortunately we are able to bring within the rules of order—I say this with respect to the Chair—a discussion about future cuts in manpower, because the Home Office circular dated 18th January makes it clear that these cuts are to operate from 1st January of this year and, therefore, come within the period covered by the Supplementary Estimates.
I am alarmed to find this statement in paragraph 4 of the Home Office circular dated 18th January. It is the type of explanation of a Supplementary Estimate that one looks for, however alarmed one is when one finds it there. Paragraph 4 says, under the heading "Police Officers":
The aim is that the aggregate strength of police officers throughout England and Wales in the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st March, 1969 should increase by not more than 1,200.
Then we were told a little about how it was to be done. It says:
In allocating this increase between individual forces, it seems sensible that the forces which are substantially below strength should be permitted to grow at a faster rate than those whose strengths are nearer their establishments".
In the next circular, only four days later, we had an explanation of that statement.
But the explanation is extraordinary, because we are told:
Plans for expenditure on police manpower during the period 1st January, 1968, to 31st March, 1969, are based on the assumption that forces with a strength deficiency, of men and women combined, of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. assessed on the figures reported as at 1st January, 1968, will not increase then strength over this period by more than 1 per cent. of their authorised establishment; those; with a deficiency of over 20 per cent. by not more than 2 per cent.
I should be glad to be corrected by the Under-Secretary of State if I am wrong, but that seems to mean that it will be all right if strengths remain respectively 19 per cent. and 38 per cent. below authorised establishment in extreme cases. One hopes that the extreme cases will not be characteristic, but for that to be achieved as a result of the Home Office's obligation to make a contribution to the economies which the Government must make is most alarming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) pointed out,

the first duty of a Government is to preserve law and order. If police strengths are already acknowledged to be insufficient, it is false economy not to increase them, and it is not an economy which should be accepted. It may be that ultimately the result dill be for police forces to be cut.
I was a little saddens  to find, in the methods to be employ  what is to happen to police cadets. If young men aged between 17 and 20 cide to devote those very important formative years to training for what they hope will be their life's work, only to find that even if they pass the test they will not enter the police forces to which they are accredited, that is a shattering thing for them and a deplorable waste of found talent. We see what is to happen in a simple sentence in the circular of 18th January, which says:
All forces should continue to attest cadets when they reach the qualifying age, but they must be accommodated within the foregoing arrangements.
In other words, if cadets are found suitable but cannot be retained within the force because of the economies which are to be imposed, they shall be rejected.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will help me. I gather that the economies he is talking about are for the year 1968–69 and not in these Supplementary Estimates.

Sir D. Renton: I can help you, Mr. Speaker. In the circular mentioned, the period starts with 1st January, 1968, and, therefore, one must regard the circular as an explanation of the way in which the Supplementary Estimates will work out in practice. I have done my best to keep in order and sincerely believe that, having given this explanation, I may well be found to be. I have made the point. I hope for an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Home Office will have second thoughts about the police cadets and that those already at any rate attested and qualified will not be kept in any single case from becoming members of the police forces concerned.
There is mention in the circulars of the possibility of saving police manpower by the greater use of traffic wardens. Here I have a confession to make. When I was occupying the hon. and learned


Gentleman's post at the Home Office and assisted in the passage of the Road Traffic and Road Improvement Act, 1960, which introduced traffic wardens, at the request of the right hon. Gentleman the present Minister of Public Building and Works, I gave an undertaking that the duties of traffic wardens would not be extended beyond those which were announced at the time as being the duties for which they were intended—namely, in relation to traffic parking meters, to car parks and to static duties generally.
I know that already there has been some use of traffic wardens on other duties and I do not complain of that, although it may well appear to have been a breach of the undertaking I gave. But when we find the sort of thing that there is in these circulars about the extended use of traffic wardens to save police manpower, we are entitled to be told what the new policy is to be and quite specifically that it can be examined in relation to the undertakings given by a previous Government.
There is so much that one could say and one knows that one would be in order in continuing for some time, but I conclude by saying that I have reason to appreciate the co-operation on police matters which the Home Secretary gave when advising the Police Federation some years ago. I realise that it must have been galling for him to have to authorise the circulars which were issued in his name, and I only hope that the decisions which have been taken are not final and that the pleas made by my hon. Friends may yet be heeded.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone): As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) has said, although most of the cuts recently announced come in the coming financial year 1968–69, the Estimate we are discussing covers the 1967–68 period and the disclosures which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) have made relate to the present year as well as to the following year. I think this appalling. We were given no inkling of this in the Prime Minister's statement. The fact that the benches opposite are totally vacant shows that hon. Members opposite have not a clue that this is what the Home Secretary has agreed to do.
These figures show that at long last the recruitment of the police, which for so long has been dragging behind the needs of the country in the face of an almost unprecedented crime wave in living memory, had just reached the point where it was really encouraging. I am told that the figure for 1967 was 3,615 —the only time that it has risen above 3,000. Now, largely owing to other cuts, which it would not be in order to discuss, the Home Secretary has an opportunity to recruit into the police force as of now, in this financial year, candidates suitable in age, health, mental and physical characteristics and accustomed to discipline. What does he do? He throws it away. Not only does he reject the opportunity, but he makes it absolutely clear that he is killing, nipping in the bud, the hopes of an increased police force which the figures I have quoted led us to believe might be possible.
I dare say not one single Member opposite realises what he has done. I doubt whether the public know either. Anyone in this country who thought that we had too many policemen would deserve to have his head examined. Yet that is the proposition to which, in substance, the Home Secretary, concealed behind this Estimate, is committing himself. He is starting from January in the current financial year, restricting the income over a period of time to 1,200 when all the indications were that we had every reason to hope that for the present period it would be fully 4,000.
I hardly believed this when I heard it, and I put down a Question for Written Answer so as to confirm it. He said. just as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire has disclosed, that the figure in the period concerned, beginning 1st January, was 1,200. He tries to cover that up by talking about unit beats, the use of "Z" cars and establishments. We know perfectly well about all these aids, which no one welcomes more than we on this side of the House.
He has not got enough policemen. Now, when for the first time for a number of years he has the opportunity of recruiting more—an unparalleled opportunity disclosed both by the recent figures and the availability of manpower as a result of the cuts—he throws it away with both hands. This is the first


act of the Home Secretary who was once the adviser to the police.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Disgraceful.

Mr. Hogg: Disgraceful is not too strong a word. I am shocked and appalled beyond measure at what the right hon. Gentleman has found it possible to do. Even now I would like to think that he had it in him to have the decision reversed. I cannot understand why this appalling decision was not contained in the Prime Minister's statement. I can only suppose that it was because the Government knew how it would be received by the public.
I cannot conceive how the Home Secretary allowed himself to be bull-dozed into this extraordinary position. I can only put it down either to exhaustion, as a result of his experiences as Chancellor of the Exchequer, or alternatively total inexperience as Home Secretary. I can assure him that if he goes on like this, he has made a very bad beginning and we shall give him absolute stick until he improves.

9.40 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): On the whole members opposite spoke in sorrow rather than in anger until the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) spoke. I am glad the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has raised this subject. It is a matter of great importance. I agree with everything he said about the important rôle the police play, and I agree with the view that detection by the police is the most important single deterrent in the penal field.
I hope in the course of my answer to the various speeches that I shall cover most of the points. It is important for the House to look at it against the whole background, and one must look at the police manpower position as it has changed over the last ten years or so. Police manpower in 1956 was 68,000, and since then the position has fundamentally improved to the extent that by the end of 1967 the figure was 89,597, an average increase of 1,800 police a year.
Police manpower comes to something like 65 per cent. of total police expendi-

ture. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone referred to the increase during 1967, which he understated. For the full year it was 4,124, 64 per cent. higher than the previous year when the increase was 2,500.
Regarding the Metropolitan police, again the hon. Member for Runcorn was right. The increase last year was 804 compared with 500 in the previous year. It is important for the House to realise that the civilian side of the service has increased dramatically as well. In 1956 it was 12,400. By the end of 1967 it was 28,600, an annual rise in this case of 1,473. In recent years the rise has become progressively steeper—2,000 in 1965; just under 3,100 in 1966 and 4.188 in 1967.
My right hon. Friend has asked me to make it clear that it is only with the greatest reluctance that he has decided to seek restraint in the increase of police strength in the civilian part to support the police. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone suggested that there had been a cut back. Nothing of the kind is true. There is not a cut back in the police, and Press reports are totally misleading. The right hon. and learned Member suggested that in the Home Office Circular we sought to hide the fact that only 1,200 extra recruits were to be sought in the next financial year. It was stated quite specifically that the aim was that the aggregate strength of police officers for England and Wales in the period could increase by not more than 1,200. There was no cover up of any kind.

Mr. Hogg: What I said, and what I hope I made plain, was that the purpose of tucking it away in the circular instead of putting it plainly and honestly in the Prime Minister's statement was to conceal it. There was no suggestion that the circular itself was a concealment. May I, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted me again, also point out that what I said was that the right hon. Gentleman was throwing away his opportunity of recruiting more police and that what was cut back was the rate of recruitment and not the net number of police.

Mr. Taverne: I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman rather overstated his case. If he reads HANSARD


tomorrow, he will find that he alleged that under cover of the Home Office circular we tried to hide the figure of 1,200 which was untrue, and I am glad he has not repeated it. The increase in numbers which has taken place has led to an increase in public expenditure.
The figures of expenditure are very considerable. Expenditure on the police service for England and Wales has risen from £160 million in 1963-64 to £220 million in 1966–67—a rise of £60 million in four years. To put it another way, the increase in expenditure in 1966–67 was more than one-third as much again as in the four years before. We were faced with Estimates which suggested that in the coming year it would have risen to just on £257 million—more than 10 per cent. higher than in the current year.
Hon. Members opposite who are concerned about the rise of public expenditure must take account of the fact that police expenditure was rising very sharply. If one was considering the need to cut back public expenditure in general, it was impossible to exempt the police. If one expected the local authorities to limit the amount which they were to spend in a certain period, one could not possible impose on them an ever-increasing expenditure on the police force.

Sir D. Renton: When the population is increasing, and when the crime wave has continued to mount, at any rate until very recently—for all we know it may still be mounting—and when Parliament continues to increase the burden on the police by legislation, surely it is only right that police manpower should go on increasing, which inevitably means an increase in police expenditure.

Mr. Taverne: What I was pointing out was that the increase in expenditure was very considerable indeed and that one must have regard to the rôle of the police in the increasing expenditure if one is considering the overall picture and one must not impose on local authorities duties to cut back further in other directions without limiting the increase in the police service.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have allowed the Minister to answer what I suspect was out of order. He must come to the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Tavene: As part of the general programme, one had to ask for restraint on the increase in manpower. The financial objectives could have been achieved in a number of ways. We could have stopped police recruiting and concentrated on increasing the number of civilians, but I am sure that hon. Members would agree that it would have been wrong to put the cuts in that field and that it was right to put the main emphasis of the increased expenditure on the police on increasing police strength and limiting more severely the increase in civilians.
The hon. Member for Runcorn asked whether the Police Advisory Board was consulted. It was impossible to consult the Board about the nature of these cuts because it was impossible to consult it about what was being decided in the Cabinet. The decisions had to be very rapidly announced, and time prevented consultation from taking place.
The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir D. Renton) asked about police cadets. I can give him a complete assurance on this point. Police cadets who are suitable will be taken on in the force, and even if this brings the total numbers of the force above the, as it were, permitted increase, this would still be allowed, although it might be that a further increase could not be made up from other sources of recruitment.
The intention is to increase the numbers in the forces in England and Wales by 1,200 up to 31st March, 1969. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles) asked whether the inducements were sufficient for recruitment. On the basis of the recruitment figures in the past, the inducements have been sufficient. The problem which we have to face is not to recruit more but to limit the amount by which recruitment is increased.
Hon. Members have referred to the way in which this can be achieved. The hon. Member for Runcorn was right. If there is an overall limit in the increase of 1,200, it should be concentrated in those areas where the need is greatest. This has been done by dividing the forces into three categories—those with less than 10 per cent. deficiency on authorised establishment figures, in which case existing numbers will be maintained; those with a deficiency of between 10 and 20 per cent.,


where a 1 per cent. increase will be permitted on the authorised establishment strength; and those with a deficiency of more than 20 per cent., which will include the Metropolitan Police, where the increase will be 2 per cent. The present deficiency in the authorised establishment figure of the Metropolitan Police is about 23 per cent., so that force will be included.

Mr. Carlisle: My point about the Police Advisory Board was in relation to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. I accept that it would have been difficult to ask the Board for its advice when the matter was before the Cabinet, but was it consulted on the manner in which recruitment would be achieved? It seems to me that, while selective, it is extremely crudely selective. It could be better done.

Mr. Taverne: This is where the time aspect comes in. The hon. Member will realise that in many cases local authorities are already preparing their budgets. We needed proposals at once as to how recruitment was to be cut back, and it was not possible for this important matter to be considered at the next meeting of the Advisory Board.
We have already also advised police authorities that, except for applications already under consideration, changes in the various establishment figures must be deterred until further notice. There may, of course, be adjustment of ranks and poets within the existing establishment figures—but I must speak of establish-melt figures, since a great deal of play has been made over the deficiencies there.
We are seeking a more objective method of assessing force establishments. Force establishments are at present arrived at largely on the basis of mutual consultation between the chief constable and the relevant H.M. Inspector of Constabulary in the exercise of their professional judgment. The total of all the establishments determined by police authorities—and these are subject to the Secretary of State's approval—has been rising at a faster rate than the strength of the police force has been rising. One has, in some ways, the rather curious position that that there is this very large increase in the total police force—from some 68,000 over 10 years ago to just under 90,000 today—yet, on the basis of

the various establishment figures, the deficiencies are greater than ever. What is needed, therefore, and what we realise is needed, is some objective method of assessing what the establishment figure should be.
One cannot say that the police situation is worse than it was 10 years ago when we now have more policemen than ever before, and when they are better equipped than ever before. Therefore, to some extent, the paper deficiencies—and I agree that there is certainly a real deficiency as well—which are so often referred to are in many respect misleading, particularly when a comparison is made with the past. This is not a P.A.B. figure arrived at on the basis I have described. The police working party agreed that there was a chronic deficiency of policemen, and I do not resile from that view in any way, but the figures are in many ways misleading.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Runcorn referred to the success of unit beat policing—

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves manpower in order to deal with equipment, will he deal with what the position for recruitment into the police will be for men redundant from the Armed Forces?

Mr. Taverne: It will be exactly the same as it has been in the past. There is a slight age differential at the start. Otherwise, from whatever source people come into the force, they receive the emoluments and pay to which anyone entering the force is entitled. There is no special level for those recruited from the Armed Forces, except that someone joining over the age of 22 gets more, initially, than the person joining at 19 years of age.
It is obvious that unit beat policing has a very important effect in dealing with the general deficiency of policemen. It was estimated by the working party, which advocated this system, that if it were in existence where it could be in existence—and it has been pretty widely in existence—it would be the equivalent of an addition of 5 per cent., or some 5,000 men, to police strength. By the end of 1968, the overwhelming proportion of the population will be covered by unit beat policing.
Hon. Members asked about equipment and it is right that they should be reassured about equipment and the expenditure on motor cars and personal radio sets. There is no cutback in the planned increase of expenditure on equipment. It is expected that about 3,000 cars and 14,250 radios—not in all cases radios for unit beat schemes, but, overall, 14,250 personal radios—will be operational by the end of March, and the general equipment position stands where it stood before, certainly for unit beat policing.
Looking at the general picture, at the widespread introduction of unit beat policing and the saving in many respects and the more efficient use of manpower and the fact that we are not reducing the size of the police force, but cutting back on the very successful recruiting which has taken place, and remembering that the Estimates for the purposes of rate support grants were for two years increases in establishment of 3,000 each and remembering that even the cutback in overall numbers means an increase over the two-year period of some 5,200 men, it would be wrong for hon. Members to try to sustain the thesis that the police force is not being adequately maintained and adequately developed.

Sir D. Renton: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say something about traffic wardens?

Mr. Taverne: I cannot give the right hon. and learned Gentleman details about traffic wardens. The restrictions on civilian employment will apply to traffic wardens as well, but it is envisaged that more traffic wardens will be recruited, although certainly not on the scale originally envisaged. There is no doubt that there will be greater difficulties with traffic as a result of the cutback. I surmise that, in a way, traffic will suffer from the cutback in the increase rather more than the fight against crime.

Mr. Speaker: I must remind the House that debates on this Second Reading are confined to the items in the Supplementary Estimates. We are getting a little wide.

Orders of the Day — EMPLOYMENT (NORTH WARWICKSHIRE)

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: May I first say how much I welcome the opportunity to raise the subject of employment opportunities in North Warwickshire at an hour rather earlier than that to which I have been accustomed when speaking in Consolidated Fund Bill debates? I am grateful for this opportunity at this hour, because I do not relish keeping members of the opposite sex who are members of the Government out of their beds, as I did last time.
I have a long list of figures to quote, but I should like to say that I am not basically questioning anything in the Government's overall policy for development areas. I shall be quoting a fair number of figures, but I should not like it to be thought that doing so meant that I did not agree with the basic deployment of industry in areas of high long-term unemployment. I certainly realise that my part of the West Midlands is not the only part of the West Midlands to have serious problems of unemployment.

Mr. Speaker: This is not an Adjournment debate and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will link what he has to say with some item in the Supplementary Estimates. Perhaps he will tell me which.

Mr. Huckfield: I should like to speak on that item in the Supplementary Estimates which refers to expenditure on fuel policy.

Mr. Speaker: Can the hon. Gentleman give me the reference?

Mr. Huckfield: I do not have it with me.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I will find it while the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

Mr. Huckfield: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned particularly with the Estimate referring to the future of the coal industry, because my constituency is affected by the possible rundown of the Warwickshire coalfield.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, in this Second Reading


debate he can raise matters which are covered by one of the Supplementary Estimates before the House. I am trying to find the Estimate to which he is relating his comments. We cannot debate national policy in general.

Mr. Huckfield: It may be that I have been informed about the wrong list of Supplementary Estimates. I wonder if I might be given a copy of them.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman continues his speech ——

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Perhaps I can help, Mr. Speaker It may be that my hon. Friend referring to the Board of Trade Vote and the investment grants.

Mr. Speaker: That is what I imagined at the beginning. Mr. Huckfield.

Mr. Huckfield: I am sorry that I did not come to the central point of my remarks more immediately. I apologise for detaining the House in this way.
I am concerned with the Board of Trade's central policy in issuing industrial development certificates and grants to parts of the development areas. Although the general emphasis of the Board of Trade's grants is on the development areas, it must be stressed that there are places outside the development areas which ought to be included in the Board of Trade's policy.
The employment situation in North Warwickshire is comparable to some of the percentages recorded already in the development areas. To quote the figures for November, 1967, on a percentage basis, Ebbw Vale had 5·3 per cent. unemployment. Llanelli had 3·7 per cent., Teesside had 4 per cent., Workington had 4·6 per cent., and Glasgow had 4·5 per cert. In my constituency, which takes in Nuneaton and the Atherstone area, the percentage recorded was 5·6, while in the Bedworth area it was 9·8.
I admit at once that those figures, to an extent, are inflated by short-time working in the car trade, which is centred particularly upon Coventry. However, my main thesis remains unaffected by the partial inflation of the figures by an amount of short-time working.
All this has had the consequence of causing a great deal of uncertainty

among my constituents and has been connected with the future uncertainty of the car trade, the machine tool trade and that of the Warwickshire coalfield.
In the past, the Board of Trade's policy with regard to industrial grants, investment grants and the various other incentives given has been concentrated on the development areas. However, although the West Midlands is classified as a prosperous area, there are parts where I suggest some more selective element should be introduced into the Board of Trade's investment and industrial development certificate policy. I make that point particularly in relation to my own constituency.
Taking the figures in the surrounding towns and employment centres, places like Leicester, Tamworth, Hinckley, Rugby and Coventry will all be found to have much lower percentages in the period between September, 1967, and January, 1968, than that of my own constituency. My constituency has figures as high as 10 per cent., again bearing in mind the partial inflation caused by short-time working in the car trade, whereas other population centres have had figures between 1½ and 2 per cent. over the same period, and they have not gone much higher.
There is a big distinction to be drawn between the two local authority areas which I represent in this House and the other areas in the surrounding counties. I would like to use this point as a basis for arguing the case for more selective making of industrial grants and more selective granting of industrial development certificates.
The policy so far has not been made so selective, because the two reports which have been issued—first, by the Department of Economic Affairs and, secondly, by the West Midlands Economic Planning Council—have pretended to ignore the Coventry sub-region. I believe they have done this on the ground that between 1951 and 1964 there was a 24 per cent. increase in population in this sub-region. For this basic reason and also for the reason that the reports to which I have referred have so far concentrated on the Birmingham overspill, my constituency has not received any attention focused on this particular problem. This may be because in the West Midlands as a whole only 2 per


cent. of the population have been involved in mining and quarrying. But in Nuneaton and Atherstone it is possible that some 16 or 17 per cent. of the population are involved in the mining industry. This shows the difference between Nuneaton and other parts of the West Midlands area.
Between 1945 and 1963 government steering policy has had the result of turning away perhaps 100,000 jobs from the West Midlands. This could involve some 200 firms. I put this on a long-term basis from 1945 to 1963, because the area as a whole was regarded as a prosperous area. However, from the figures that I have quoted and from some of the problems to which I have made reference, it can be seen that there is a need for some kind of selectivity, even bearing in mind the bias in the figures I have used.
Apart from this, the non-selectivity and the rather blanket policy concerning development areas and non-development areas has meant that firms in North Warwickshire which have wanted industrial development certificates have not had the opportunity of getting them. A classical example in Nuneaton is the firm of Clarkson's, which exports about 80 per cent. of its total product. When this firm could not get an industrial development certificate for expansion it had to go elsewhere. I am informed by several of my constituents and representatives of local authorities that other firms, too, have made representations to the Board of Trade, but have so far been unable to get the kind of permission which is necessary to set up factories and expand locally.
The sites are available. We have one on the site of the old Haunchwood Colliery. I know that the Nuneaton Borough Council is very interested in the expansion of this site. We feel that the centring of Galley Common Village and the surrounding population on the old Haunchwood Colliery and the closing down of the colliery has left that part of my constituency without a nucleus. If some kind of industry could be started on this very good site it would form an excellent basis for future expansion.
I have already had an opportunity of putting this point to the chairman of the West Midlands Economic Planning Council and to the Hunt Committee which

is at present considering, on behalf of the Government, the future of what has been called grey areas. Basically, I am advocating more selectivity, especially for the areas which have so far been classified as the prosperous areas, because I believe that Nuneaton, not only in being adjacent to the A5 and the main electrified railway line to London and the North, has some very good amenities to offer in social and recreational directions.
What I am basically seeking is work in North Warwickshire and local jobs for local men. This is my main point. I am sorry if I have appeared to stray in essence from my intention, but I would like to refer briefly to an answer which I received from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour today. He said that in considering applications for I.D.C.s his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade would take full account of any colliery closures and the level of employment generally in North Warwickshire. I would like a more definite answer from my hon. Friend, because I know that it will be very much appreciated, not only by the 8,000 miners who still work in the Warwickshire coalfield, but also by the many more of my constituents whom I represent in this House.

10.11 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): I appreciate the concern which my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) has expressed about the employment situation in North Warwickshire. Before I come to the question of investment grants and the whole question of selectivity, perhaps I might briefly discuss some of the difficulties which are bound to arise with unemployment at the present level.
There are doubts about two coal mines in the area, but I think that we must look at the situation in the context of the employment position in the area as a whole. For a long time this part of the Midlands enjoyed low rates of unemployment. Coal mining is important in the area, but it by no means dominates the industrial structure, and as the economy moves forward the demand for labour is again likely to increase. Compared with many districts, particularly in parts of the development areas, North


Warwickshire should be better placed to absorb a rundown in coal mining.
The whole rationale behind the Government's policy in the development areas is that there is a desperate need for employment in them. Some of them have a continuing problem of very high unemployment. Unfortunately, the amount of industry on the move never seems quite to keep pace with the needs, and we must do all that we can to bring work to these very hard hit areas. I was glad my hon. Friend said that he supported the measures to bring them help, but I am afraid that this can be done only by taking a firm line on applications elsewhere, and, much as we would like to assist industrial expansion in many places, it must be faced that there is a limit on what can be done in establishing new, expanded industries. Faced with a decision whether to agree to industrial development, we must, if we consider that it should go ahead in a development area, give that area preference.
My hon. Friend mentioned the amount of travel to work in North Warwickshire. I am afraid that I have no recent information about this, but the movement of workers is undoubtedly extensive, both to and from Nuneaton and Bedworth in particular. Travel out from the area greatly exceeds that inwards, mainly to the industries in Coventry. We realise that there are undesirable features about excessive travel to work, and to the existence of what may be described as dormitory areas. The distances are not, however, very great, and I have little doubt that workers attracted to Coventry by the range of employment and the good wages that they can obtain find the journey worthwhile. It is vitally important that industries should be able to attract workers. I do not think that it would be sensible to establish enterprises in the surrounding areas which would draw that labour away. Travel to work within an area such as this is part of the normal pattern today, and as such should be accepted. We do not, of course, want to see people forced to travel many miles to get a job, but the distances involved here do not seem to be excessive.
My hon. Friend raised the whole question of investment grant policy. If we are to attract industry into the development areas, investment grants are an active

plank in our present plans. My hon Friend suggested that we should consider varying the rate of investment grant payable for qualifying grant and machinery. We have received many similar requests from other areas, notably North-East Lancashire, Yorkshire, and Humberside. The long-term prospects of North Warwickshire are better than those of many other areas.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Would the hon. Lady bear in mind the great difficulty now experienced by Midlands firms due to the increased cost of transport to the docks because of the new Transport Bill, which is another——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss new legislation in this debate.

Mrs. Dunwoody: On the whole problem of investment grants, the rationale behind them was to attract employment very much to the development areas, and at present there is no intention of varying their payment on the selective lines requested by my hon. Friend.
However, to follow his particular point, we are concerned that there may be pockets of unemployment in those areas which are, because of their overall employment rates, thought to be generally much more prosperous. We do not underestimate the difficulties which this creates for particular areas, but we do not feel that the varying of investment grants would deal with it efficiently and we are using our industrial development certificate policy to consider sympathetically those areas with a particular problem relating to colliery closures.
My hon. Friend, of course, mentioned the Hunt Committee which was set up to examine the problems of areas in which the rate of economic growth has given us cause for concern. It is conducting a study in depth which can be expected to make a considerable contribution to our consideration of the problem and is, of course, considering all the evidence submitted to it. It knows the importance which the Government attach to its report and is pressing ahead as quickly as possible.
I must say, however, that the problems of North Warwickshire do not appear to be as severe as those of many


other areas which the Committee will, no doubt, consider. I do not want to give the impression, however, that we are unsympathetic to the problems of areas other than development areas. We must give their special needs priority, but, subject to this, we can and do operate a flexible policy towards industrial development. The needs of places outside development areas, including North Warwickshire, where employment can be affected by colliery closures, are taken into account in the issue of industrial development certificates, as well as the current and local employment position.
I can assure my hon. Friend that applications for industrial development certificates in areas of above-average unemployment in North Warwickshire are considered more sympathetically than those for development in the highly congested parts of the West Midlands.

Mr. Huckfield: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. She was saying earlier that it would appear that the distance between Nuneaton, Atherstone, and Coventry is not great. Is she aware that some of my constituents are spending as much as £2 a week in bus fares and have to travel as long as an hour either way to and from work? Does she regard this as a satisfactory long-term answer for North Warwickshire?

Mrs. Dunwoody: No one would regard too great a travel-to-work problem as being a long-term satisfactory answer, but the point in relation to other areas, for instance development areas, is that many workers do not have the choice even of travelling to work distances like this. Although we are not sanguine about the difficulties of workers faced with unemployment problems, even in these circumstances priority will still go to those areas with much higher and more continuous rates of unemployment.

10.19 p.m.

Sir John Gilmour: Scotland plays a very important part in providing not only its own meat supplies but a large part—particularly the quality part—of both beef and lamb supplies for the South of England market. Given the absence of foot-and-mouth disease, it could and would take an active part in export trade as well.
The Vote on which I am speaking covers the hill cattle and hill sheep subsidies in particular as well as the winter keep grants, from which a considerable proportion of the meat supplies originates. Of course, the very fact that these supplies originate in the furthest parts of the country makes one interested in what the cost of transporting this meat may be in future from these areas and makes one wonder —

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such interest may be highly commendable, but it is quite out of order at the moment.

Sir J. Gilmour: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. When discussing an industry like this, which has so many ramifications, it is difficult to be certain which parts are in order to be discussed and which are not.
Farming in Scotland can play an important part, as it does now, but it must do this against an extremely difficult background. For example, 5,000 acres a year go out of farming use for roads, industry and housing. The majority of this is good farming land. It means that by the end of the century we will have lost about 150,000 acres of land, which probably means that about 1,000 good farms will go out of the active production of meat.
Apart from the challenge of devaluation and import substitution, we need to look carefully at what is covered by these Estimates and what happens as a result. If one looks at page 16, one sees that the hill cattle and hill sheep subsidies are increased under the 1967 Annual Review and that the same applies to the winter keep grants. This means that, although we are now discussing the extra amount of money necessary to implement the

Government's policies, in fact the Government did not place their plans for the implementation of these policies until after the general Estimates for the year had been laid before Parliament.
This leads me to think that the Price Review takes place at the wrong time of the year. Urgent consideration should be given to this aspect because, if we altered it, we would obviate what occurs in these Estimates—of, nine months after the Price Review has been laid before Parliament, having to ask for an increase in the Estimates. The farming community must lay its plans well ahead. In the industry which we are considering tonight—the meat supply industry—if we are marketing an animal aged 18 months, the animal was conceived another nine months before that. We are, therefore, working on a long-term strategy.
As I understand it, the Government have often resisted the idea of bringing forward the date of the Price Review because they feel that they would not have collected enough information. However, I suggest that all the information is available from year to year so that adjustments in values could be made. If we are to achieve what the country needs by way of import substitution, it is wrong—and this complaint has been registered for some months—that we should have to wait until after March, after which practically all the planning, including cropping plans, have been made. These plans are important in that we are producing feed for cattle. A decision in this matter should have taken place before that time. I trust that urgent consideration will be given to this, to see if the planning of our agriculture production can be done with the avoidance of these sorts of Supplementary Estimates, so that the matter can be got into perspective, for this would be in the long-term interests of agriculture.2
If we are to achieve the extra production we want, it looks, under the present system, as though we must always be adding to the guaranteed price. Had it not been for the foot-and-mouth outbreak, the Estimate which had been prepared—I have details of it with me because of the outbreak it was withdrawn—would still have necessitated a further payment of Exchequer funds towards the price guarantees.
From the point of view of livestock producers throughout the country, and particularly those in Scotland, between the 12th and 34th weeks of the fatstock year there was, in every week, a deficiency payment of 30s. or more being made to producers. In the weeks 16 and 17 of the fatstock year there was an abatement of 10s. 5d. a cwt. and in another week an abatement of 12s. 6d. a cwt. This means that if we are to get an extra farming production we are up against the imposition of Treasury control to keep down the amount of money that is voted.
Surely we must have some measure of import control and a target set for the home industry which would say, "We wish you to produce so many more tons of meat a year and we in turn will guarantee that we shall not allow the market to be disturbed by abnormal quantities of meat from the Argentine or any part of the world". If small amounts of imported meat come on to the market it disturbs the market and then we have to have deficiency payments. It is essential that the Government should not only give a guaranteed price but also a target and that deficiency payments should not skyrocket so that as a result the Treasury clamp down on increased production and the good work which could be done in home production is lost.
On page 16 of the Estimates I call attention to the Subheads B and 0. One refers to lime subsidy and the other to grants for the promotion of agricultural investment. It is said that there was a reduction in purchases of lime. This movement must be against the interests particularly of livestock producers whose land can be improved by the use of lime. It means that the system at the moment does not give farmers confidence to put money up. Because of high Bank Rate and the squeeze, the farmer has not the money to put up.
Under Subhead 0, Grants for Promotion of Agricultural Investment, there is a grant not exceeding 12½ per cent. on fixed equipment and long-term improvements. There were fewer applications than were anticipated. Although the Government are willing to pay money, the situation in which the farming industry is placed does not allow that money

to be spent. The same applies under paragraph 2 for grants not exceeding 15 per cent. on specified types of self-propelled machines where there were fewer applications than were anticipated. There is the sum of £415,000 which might have gone to finance the efficiency of the industry in Scotland but which has not been met. That is because the policies the Government have pursued have lost the confidence of the farming community. It is essential now that we are coming to the Price Review time that urgent steps should be taken to restore that confidence so that the good which could be done for British agriculture and for the country as a whole can be realised.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The 1968 Price Review White Paper says in relation to improvements and alterations in some of the Review prices:
These determinations..
—the increases in the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies and the alternative head-age payments for winter keep alone—
above will ensure the upward trends of production needed in the national interest.
In relation to this I wish to examine the position of upland hill farmers in Scotland in relation to meat production. When he replies, can the Joint Under-Secretary for Scotland give the approximate breakdown of the numbers for the headage and the farms involved in the change over from the winter keep payments, plus hill cow subsidy, plus the headage payments for hill cows as nearly as possible?
The December, 1967, Agricultural Returns show that there has been a 4 per cent. decline in the overall sheep flock in Scotland. The breakdown, as far as I can find out, is not yet available for the various areas, but in the North-East of Scotland the fall in the sheep flock has been going on steadily since it reached its peak in 1962 of 1,600,000. In June, 1965, it had gone down to slightly over 1 million, and in December, 1965, it had gone down to just over 800,000. So what we are seeing is a continuing trend in the fall of the sheep flock. I think the area I have cited, the North-East of Scotland, is indicative of what is going on throughout Scotland, because it is an area which includes not only


Banff, Moray and Nairn, but Aberdeen, Kincardine, Caithness and Orkney.
The fall in the sheep flock is not only brought about in the hill areas but in the lowland farm areas, and it is there that the decline is most noticeable. The fact is, of course, that the price of the end product is simply not enough to encourage breeders in these lower lying farms, and the breeding is left almost entirely to the hill men. The number of sheep in the upland or hill farms, I am led to believe, has not fallen nearly as much proportionately as it has on the lowland farms, and the reason is not difficult to determine. The lower land farmers are able to turn to other things; the hill farmers in many areas, and the ones I am thinking of particularly, have no alternative but to carry on; there is literally nothing else to which they can turn for their livelihood. The lowland farmer can turn to grain, but the hill farmer has nothing else but hill sheep, or hill cattle, for his livelihood. It is a disturbing trend, and I think the whole House would agree.
On the other hand, it is sometimes said — indeed, it is often said—that farmers should do a great deal more to help themselves. Marketing is said to be the weakest factor of all the agricultural economy in the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore I think it is right to commend to the House, and, indeed, to the country, the Scottish Quality Lamb Association.
Now, if the lamb is not forthcoming this scheme is going to fall flat on its face. That is self-evident, and unless we can give encouragement and confidence to the hill farmers to produce more lamb, and more quality lamb, then we are not going to achieve anything like the kind of production we really need.
As with every other commodity, whether it be a farming commodity or a manufactured commodity, a thing of quality will sell, and it is already proven that the activities of the Scottish Quality Lamb Association have made considerable sales as far apart as Brussels and. of all places, Hong Kong. I now understand that the pilot scheme for the sale of Scottish lamb is to be produced in February in southern England, and that is at a time, of course, when Scottish hoggets are at their very best.
I would suggest that when the flock number is falling then it is time action was taken in the North-East, and in addition, of course, in all the sheep-rearing areas of Scotland. When the St. Andrew's cross is put on those carcases we naturally hope that it will be a common sight throughout England and the whole United Kingdom. At the moment the system works on a limited scale through a limited number of markets. I hope to see it expand, and I am sure that the whole House not only applauds the Association's efforts but wishes it well.
A remarkable and admirable survey was carried out by Mr. A. B. K. Tracey for the North of Scotland College of Agriculture on hill farm incomes between 1965 and 1966. He selected 20 farms, all of which received the hill cow, hill sheep and winter keep payments where applicable. Nine farmed with cattle and sheep and 11 were farmed without cattle. Almost entirely, therefore, the latter section was dependent on sheep for income. In every case there was a larger or lesser acreage of arable ground devoted entirely to producing winter keep for cattle and/or sheep.
The winter keep scheme virtually prohibits any fattening. Therefore the stock was, and still is, sold as stores in the autumn in which the progeny were born. One interesting observation by Mr. Tracey was that the unit costs of hill farms with cattle were very much higher than those entirely dependent on sheep for their income. The most interesting fact that his survey brought out was that the Exchequer assistance to the nine farms with cattle—those which received the hill cattle subsidy at that time, not the headage payment—was 128·4 per cent. of their farm net income. On the farms entirely dependent on sheep for their incomes the Exchequer support was 38·7 per cent. of the net farm income.
The farms in the survey received the hill cattle subsidy, hill sheep subsidy, and, of course, the calf subsidy. In some cases Winter keep payment was also applicable, where cattle were involved. Eight of the farms—40 per cent. of the sample—had a net income of less than £750 in 1965–66. Admittedly, in 1966 sales of weaned calves, calves which had been punched and whose dams had received the hill cow subsidy, were considerably down on 1965.
Although there was a certain amount of improvement last year, the prices of all these animals which had received subsidy were still £5 to £8 lower than those received in 1965. The price of the end product is the one that matters. It is reflected right the way back to the calf or the lamb. If the prices of the end product are not sufficient, we shall get a continuing decline in the sheep flock.
I agree that the figures I have quoted do not take into account the increases that they have received and which we are discussing on this Supplementary Estimate. But far too much of these farmers' incomes comes from the Exchequer and far too little from their product. The figures I have quoted illustrate this. No market, either last year or the year before, was available for the second and third cuts of calves. In the case of Leicester cross-lambs, the poor price of 1966 was continued into 1967 and it is still about 7s. behind that of 1965. The sale for black-faced lambs was not one bit better.
Something must be done to correct this and to allow the Government's hopes and predictions to come true. In other words, if the agricultural communities in these uplands areas are to realise their potential, something radical must be done to improve their incomes, otherwise the sheep flocks and, indeed, the cattle headage will fall in the uplands farms continually and for a long time to come.
The only way to correct the situation, in my judgment and that of many of my hon. Friends, is to change the present price support system and to introduce a system of levies on imports and thus allow the final product of these farmers, their meat, to reach world prices so that the price will be reflected right back to the calves and the lambs.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Meatns): I want to emphasise that the problems dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) in relation to his constituency's hill areas are reflected in Kincardineshire and some of the glens of Angus as well. Farm income figures published by the Department of Agriculture are even more alarming than some of the North of Scotland figures he has quoted.
The figures for 1965–66—which included the bad store price of 1966—show that, on certain types of hill and upland farms, the amount of average production grant for the farms was greater than the net income. That was an extreme year but it illustrates the problems of these farms in that so much income comes from grants of various kinds and is not received from market prices.

Mr. Baker: I said that, in one case, the net farm income was 128 per cent. and based entirely on Exchequer grant.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is the point. But it is not just in the North of Scotland that this situation exists. The figures for the whole of Scotland reflect the same problem. Therefore, the Government must pay more attention to the end price for what is produced in these areas. That is the best way of trying to infuse prosperity again into such areas.
Mention has been made of the Scottish Quality Lamb Association in marketing and the improvement in marketing methods of store stock in particular, and this could be one of the most hopeful factors. A minor experiment in Argyll is under way and I hope that this movement will be reflected elsewhere through a much more scientific approach to the problem of store stock than in the past.
I should also like to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) for initiating the debate and drawing attention to the decrease in the amounts paid out on the lime subsidy. This is a particularly serious indication, because the use of fertiliser, particularly lime, gives some indication of the level of productivity in agriculture. We all know that the use of these fertilisers helps productivity. We are talking about the need to increase home production and the need to make better use of limited land resources. We are talking particularly of the hill and upland areas, and it is in those areas that there is greatest scope for increasing production. Because of this it is disappointing to see the reduction in this subsidy.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): I may be mistaken, but I thought that we were discussing the hill and upland areas


exclusively, not particularly, as the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. What we are discussing at the moment is anything relevant to the Supplementary Estimates and in particular the winter keep grants and the lime subsidy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Lime is used in areas of Scotland other than the hill and upland areas and, in the same way, grants for the promotion of agricultural investment are also paid in areas other than the hill and upland districts. The debate is surely on the wider issue of meat supply in Scotland in relation to these Estimates. Therefore, I am certainly of the opinion that this debate is within the scope of the Supplementary Estimates, and is not confined merely to hill and upland areas. I am rather surprised at the intervention, and hope that it does not display an ignorance of what happens in Scottish agriculture.

Mr. Buchan: I rose merely to draw attention to the rather wide-ranging nature of the debate, in view of the subjects listed for discussion.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: These are not exactly limited subjects in Scotland, when one considers that the livestock industry is the most important sector of Scottish agriculture.

Sir J. Gilmour: Everything that originates on the hills is almost certain to finish up in the Lowlands, and be mixed through the whole of Scottish agriculture. That is why we are so worried about meat supplies in Scotland.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is one of the most important sectors of Scottish agriculture. It is relatively far more important than the livestock industries in England and Wales. It is a very important and weighty part of the agricultural industry that we are discussing.
The fall in the lime subsidy concerns me because it indicates that we are not creating the greater use of resources which we need, particularly in the hill and upland areas, where there is more scope for the use of lime. In the Lowlands of Scotland, we are nearer to an optimum level. This is a way of increasing output and efficiency. This is

perhaps a reflection of the bad lamb stock and store calve prices in the autumn of 1966 which destroyed quite a lot of confidence in the industry in the following winter, when money was short. There was pressure from bank managers in these areas and people probably did not invest and spend as much money as they might otherwise have done.
The particular point that I want to make relates to the supply of calves, which we are discussing under the Estimates for the calf subsidy. This refers not only to calves from the hills or the beef herds, but also to those from the Scottish dairy herds. We have to remember that about two-thirds of our home beef supplies come from the dairy herds. That is why I welcomed, as did many of my hon. Friends, and those in the industry, the fact that in 1965 the National Plan recognised that if we were to increase our meat supplies, particularly supplies of beef, a certain amount would have to come from the dairy herd as well as from the beef herd, and that as a result, there would be an increase in dairy cow numbers. But, because of the standard quantity system in the dairy herd industry, that would have meant dilution of the guaranteed price for milk. That was recognised, not only in the National Plan in 1965 but in the Price Review White Paper in 1966.
The dilution factor was recognised, and the Government said they would take action if and when the necessity arose. It has not arisen until this year. We are now getting to a stage when, for the first time, because of Government action, which I welcome, there is more confidence in the dairy industry and a considerable increase in the size of the dairy herd. At the moment, however, the increase has been chiefly confined to England. Whilst production has increased in Scotland, we have not seen the same increase in cow numbers. We have not seen the same contribution in Scotland.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary will recognise that there is in Scotland at present a genuine concern lest this so-called "dilution factor"—a slightly technical matter—is applied on an area basis. That would be to the benefit of England, because it is there that there


has been an increase in the herd numbers. It would mean that England and the English dairy farmers would get the protection of the Government assurance that the increase in dairy cow numbers will not mean that the price will be cut back because of the standard quantity. There is a rumour that in Scotland. where we have not had the same increase in dairy cow numbers, we shall not see any benefit.
It would be wrong for the Government to look at the problem on an area basis. It is much better to look at the country as a whole, because already Scotland supplies many of the dairy cows and in-calf heifers which are sold to England while, at the same time, there are being bought back from England many of the beef calves which the Government, through their subsidy schemes and in other ways, have encouraged the industry to keep rather than slaughter. I therefore hope that in this year's Price Review the anti-dilution factor will be applied on a national and not on an area basis which, if applied strictly, would discriminate against Scotland.
Mr. William Young, the Chairman of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, spoke yesterday in Ayr to the executive of the N.F.U. there. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) is not present, because I know that there are many dairy farmers in his constituency. Mr. Young, in his own very strong terms, drew attention to the present problem, and expressed the hope that the Scottish representatives of the N.F.U. would bear this point very much in mind during the Price Review, and would try to see that Scotland was not discriminated against.
I ask the Scottish Ministers to see that in the Price Review negotiations the dilution factor is not applied in such a way as to discriminate against Scotland but is applied on a United Kingdom basis. This is important, because the dairy farmer has a great contribution to make towards our beef supplies as well as to milk supplies. At the moment, we are not getting the increase in dairy cow numbers that there has been in England, so we do not want to do anything to discourage our dairy farmers from playing their part in the agricultural industry.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: Everything my hon. Friends have said tonight indicates how topsy turvy are Government priorities on farming in Scotland and indirectly in the whole of the United Kingdom. I begin by looking at the decrease in these Estimates and I will point out to the House what a reprehensible situation is brought out in them. Last time we discussed the Lime Subsidy Order many hon. Members on this side pointed out that here was a Government action which in the long term would have a serious effect on the output of Scottish agriculture. Lime is a long-term investment. Here we had a subsidy cut which, as we pointed out was likely to be the case, was followed by a reduction in purchases of lime. This is something the Government will regret one day, because it is vitally important to put back into the land a high proportion of lime. It is the key to fertilisers and it is a very short-term policy to reduce the subsidy year by year.
The other reduction is in agricultural investment grants, which, as my hon. Friend said, indicates the trend in farming, that the farmer has not now got the capital available to invest in new plant and machinery. Therefore, there should be no phasing down of the small grants for fixed machinery and self-propelled machines. During the Price Review negotiations, the Government must look again at the fact that agriculture has no capital to invest in new plant and machinery. I am sure that this is so, from talking to my neighbours and to machinery salesmen, who are having a pretty lean time now. That was the disincentive side, where I think Government policy has failed.
We look at the hill cattle subsidy and the hill sheep subsidy, the winter keep grant and the calf subsidy and see that the Estimates are increasing and that, thereby, the deficiency payment is increasing also. The Government should appreciate that the farmer wants to see his major return from the end product and to get away from continual reliance on the decisions of the Price Review and the deficiency payment level.
Hill farmers and all other farmers realise that the price of lamb per pound is today roughly what it was 10 years ago, 3s. 5d. to 3s. 6d., and that this is


set against a large but fully justified increase in wages. Hon. Members must realise that it is impossible to make a profit on a hill farm at the moment. What is the hill farmer forced to do? He cannot cut down on wages because one cannot ask two shepherds to do the job of three. One then begins the fatal spiral of the death rate going up, lambing percentages going down, and lamb and wool prices going down. It is therefore vital that the income for the hill farmer is kept up at a fair level. This is patently not so at the moment.
We are all well aware of the grants which the Government make available, same of which we are discussing tonight, but any hon. Member who is in close contact with hill farmers knows that they are now going through a stickier period than ever in the history of hill farming. Certainly something dramatic must be done in the near future. It is not as if the Government have not been given warning, or advice what to do. For three years there has been constant indication from this side of the House that action towards import control and the levy system might well bring a substantial increase in the end product. This is now accepted by the vast majority of farmers as the only way out of this impasse to give them an increased income.
We certainly support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) in regard to the calves which can be helped to provide the beef about which we are talking tonight from the dairy herd. As for winter keep, it is a fact that so many of these calves from the dairy herd could have been increased much more rapidly had the winter kee grant been available earlier.
It is time that barley was included as a crop acceptable for the grant. Modern barleys which have been carefully selected and well farmed can produce a better forage in the winter than a middling crop of oats. These are not new points to the Government since we have been putting them forward for years, but I hope that the Minister in his reply tonight will indicate that there is a change of heart and will not give us the kind of platitudes which have emanated from the Front Bench opposite for the

last three years. It is high time that we had some action.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: I hope the Under-Secretary will remember that we have had similar debates to this year after year. Each time the Government give us comforting replies which are not matched by action. Year after year one sees the position of the Scottish hill and upland farmer deteriorating even further. I believe that if there is not a substantial improvement very soon, we may see a final and ultimate decline which will throw the Scottish agricultural scene into the gravest possible position.
The hon. Gentleman may well say that 1967 was in some respects marginally a better year than 1966. I would remind him, however, that 1966 was a disastrous year for the hill farmer, and that 1967 was not much better. The underlying threat is serious indeed. The hill farmer today is in an economic straitjacket with no alternative, yet the hill farms of Scotland have the most enormous potential for a very large increase in the meat supplies which our country needs.
We have said time and again that the upland farmer depends on the low-ground men who fatten the product from the hills. The vast majority of the stock from the hill farms is sold in the store markets, and this outlet has been shrinking in recent years. The solution to this matter does not lie in fiddling about with production grants and the like. No matter how much production may be encouraged, production itself becomes meaningless unless there is a large and rising market for the end product. That market is not there, as is reflected in the prices which are at present being obtained. There must be an improvement in the market price if the industry is to survive, let alone flourish.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to hear some figures which I was given a few days ago about prices obtained for the top-draw of cast ewes from a farm in Perthshire. In 1957, the price was 120s. It fell steadily during the years which followed to an all-time low since the war of 62s. last year. That was a drop from 120s. to 62s. in 10 years. The farmer concerned pointed out to me that his grandfather was receiving 25s.


in 1867 for his best cast ewes. It is remarkable to see how the price in 1967 is so little ahead of that a century before.
When one looks at the trend of prices in the last 10 years, one sees a very disturbing and sharp fall while costs of all kinds continue to increase. In that context, farmers in Scotland are flabbergasted to see the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in the Scottish Office tolerate the introduction of the Transport Bill, which will increase the cost of agriculture even more.
The only solution to the present position that I can see is a gradual movement towards a system of import controls and levies. Unless the Government face this obvious need, I see no solution to the problems of Scottish hill farmers.
There is another aspect to this which worries me more than any other, and it is the steady and continuing fall in the labour force on hill farms. Year after year, we see more and more people leaving the hills and glens of Scotland. I wonder sometimes if an urban-minded Government such as the present one can appreciate the concern which many of my hon. Friends and I feel about the constant growth of urbanisation in Britain. This loss of people from the hills is very serious socially. The drift from the land has gained pace and far exceeds the Government's estimate. The people who leave the land do not come back again; once they go, they are lost for ever. I believe that this constant and increasing drift from the hills, which is a reflection of the financial problems facing our hill farmers, is a dangerous and constant sapping of much of the strength of the nation.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I am sure that hon. Members will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) for giving us the chance of discussing this important matter.
I realise the importance of not being unduly pessimistic, doing what the Government did when they were in opposition on all aspects of the Scottish economy, and saying that things were terrible all the time. However, the dividing line between pessimism and realism is one which I have always found to be extremely narrow.
I cannot look at the situation of upland farmers without considerable misgivings. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland produces one of the most valuable booklets published on agriculture, called "Scottish Agricultural Economics". There is a wealth of information to be found in it, and it is published in June of each year.
One needs only to look at the latest issue, for June of last year, to see that, in the three years beginning 1964–65 and ending 1966–67, both the numbers of sheep and cattle in Scotland and the tonnage of beef and mutton sold in Scotland were down. I will admit that it is not all that much of a fall, but it is quite definitely perceptible. That is despite the call in the National Plan for an increase in beef production to the limits of technical possibilities.
What disturbs me perhaps even more —certainly just as much—is that, while numbers and tonnage have been coming down, if one takes the subsidies and grants paid to these sectors over those same three years, they have been going up at quite a considerable rate. One would expect to see a response from that, but in fact no response has been forthcoming. This makes me have the gravest doubts, which I have been holding for some time, about the rightness of the system of support which we have at the present time. Many of my hon. Friends have drawn attention to the need for a swing over from a system of Treasury support to one of import levies. It is most significant that subsidies between 1964–65 and 1966–67 have risen by 40 per cent.
Turning to the net incomes which upland farmers have enjoyed in those three years—perhaps enjoyment is describing them very much more knowingly than the situation merits—in every single acreage bracket on upland farms there is a decline in net income to the tune, on average, of 12 per cent. So, too, if one looks at the figures for output of either beef or mutton from these upland farms.
The return on capital which is enjoyed by an upland farmer is received with absolute incredulity by any businessman, so low is it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) has pointed out so rightly, there are no alternatives


open to these upland farmers. They cannot grow wheat. Even if General de Gaulle were to allow us into Europe and we were to get the European price for wheat, I doubt that it would be economic Dr wise to grow wheat on the top of Ben Nevis.
I know only too well from my own experience that lamb prices, which provide me with much of my farming income, though better than they were last year, are still far lower than in 1964, while costs have gone soaring up. I subscribe to the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) about how one is expected in these areas, which are mostly a long way from the market, to absorb the extra costs that will be imposed by the Government's Transport Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain that to us.
There is, quite frankly, a terrifying instability about a situation in which over 100 per cent. of an upland farmer's profit comes from Government support. If ever there was a situation in which a building is built upon shifting sand, one has it here.
There is no doubt that a considerable area is open to us in import substitution. Every year the United Kingdom imports meat to the value of very nearly £400 million. Scotland produces about £155 million worth of meat at the present time. We supply only 76 per cent. of our own market in beef and we supply oily 43 per cent. of our market in mutton and lamb. If one considers all meat, and averages it over the board, one sees that we supply 48 per cent. of the lot.
Scotland is particularly suitable for meat production, and the expansion thereof. We have had extremely good results. In the 10 years prior to 1964, the size of the hill cow herd in Scotland doubled. We could still get a tremendous increase. There is no doubt about this, provided that the proper conditions are created for it to happen.
I subscribe to the point made by several hon. Friends that the most alarming decrease in the Estimates is that which refers to the use of lime. I would go so far as to say that we should start thinking in terms of using more lime and more slag—and possibly subsidising these to

a greater extent—and carrying more stock. This might be a way of substituting to a certain degree the present system of headage payments.
I believe that the reduction in the use of lime is symptomatic of a shortage of cash in the hands of those who would like to use it. I think it not unfair to say that, generally speaking, farmers on the low ground are more fertiliser-minded —and I include lime in the general category of fertilizers—than those on the uplands and high ground, in that if cash gets tight that is one of the things the latter tend to cut down, with, I believe, disastrous results.
I do not wish to suggest that everything is up to the Government. There are many things which hill farmers would do well to consider, and would if they had more confidence in the future. One of these is to improve grazings to enable them to keep more stock on them, and with any luck not sell so many lambs as stores, but fatten them and sell them direct to the fat market.
Secondly, they should go in for better marketing. I hope that they will read the report commissioned by the Scottish N.F.U. on the proper marketing of store stock, because there is tremendous scope for improvement here.
It is, however, up to the Government to create a climate of confidence in which people will adopt the methods which I have suggested. Meat production is vital to the prosperity of Scottish agriculture. It is far more important to Scottish farming than it is to its English counterpart. I think I am right in saying that one out of three sheep in the United Kingdom lives in Scotland, and about one out of five cattle live there. As one of my hon. Friends said, the hills form a reservoir for the finished article from the low ground. If we cut off the reservoir by making things uneconomic and anprofitable, and discourage production there, there will be widespread ripples and repercussions everywhere in the industry.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will show himself fully appreciative of the situation, and thoroughly clued up about the importance in the coming Price Review of giving encouragement to a very important sector of the agriculture industry.

11.20 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The debate has extended widely. I take the point that, generally, all things stem from this source. I recognise the importance of meat in the Scottish economy. With the best will in the world—and I do not always accuse hon. Members opposite of having the best will in the world—it is difficult to restrict our remarks to the immediate Vote with which we are concerned.
One difficulty in replying to a debate of this nature is that a Minister is asked to give assurances in a situation in which no assurances can be given. Many of the points raised fall to be dealt with in the Annual Price Review. I take the point about the decrease in the number of lambs, and the consequence. It is an example of the kind of valuable lesson that we can learn from a proper interpretation of the situation. I also take the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) that there is a tendency for the lower land farmers to be more fertiliser-minded, and that it is not only a monetary question.
I cannot pursue some of the questions in terms of the forthcoming Annual Price Review —

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulty in giving assurances, but can he at least confirm that the points that we have raised will be considered in the Price Review negotiations?

Mr. Buchan: I was going to have a brief look at this and tie it up with the point hinted at about the importance of this sector in the present economic situation—the question of import-saving in the post-devaluation period. The Government must pay attention to this aspect. On the point he raised, the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) should know my right hon. Friend and me well enough to know that particular Scottish interests will not go unrepresented at any discussion about the Annual Price Review. I hope that they will give us credit at least for that.
An interesting point was raised—it comes up every year; it has done so even during the period of the previous

Administration—concerning the question whether the Price Review is held at the right time of year. This year, because of the need of the farming industry to know where it stands in the post-devaluation situation, we made certain statements in advance, and we are trying to push through the technical discussions a little earlier this year than in the past. In this debate I cannot follow the general argument as to whether this is the right time of the year.
There are many things to think about in terms of the Annual Price Review, and we should be more concerned in seeing that the right answers are arrived at. It would appear from what was said by some hon. Members that one or two useful things began to happen in this sector in connection with the Review. I take the point about the 27 months—the period of time that has to be added before there is a return on an animal. Nobody can deny that there was a considerable restoration of confidence last year, as compared with 1966.
One of the reasons was the presence of a Labour Government, because Labour Governments have always had a natural ally in the British farmer—although that fact is not always reflected in certain terms—from the time of Tom Williams. At present there is a clear understanding that some of the solutions put forward by hon. Members opposite are not the best ones.
I appreciate the great interest of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) in hill sheep. He will know that there is a good deal of confidence, much of which is due to the existence of a Labour Government.

Mr. Michael Noble: Does not the hon. Gentleman realize—and I know he is taking a very great interest in this industry—that it hardly does justice to what he is trying to say when the extra subsidies have amounted to 40 per cent. but the income has dropped by 12 per cent. during the three years of the Labour Government. Farmers are not as stupid as that.

Mr. Buchan: I have never suggested they were. The suggestion of them being unable to interpret figures does not come from me. But I take the point completely. The solution is put forward of, on the one hand the import levy, and on


the other hand that the real panacea is an the end price. However, with respect. I do not think is of itself a panacea. I accept the importance of it, but I think this inordinate and curious faith in the fair working of an open market system, the end price and so on filtering back to the primary producer, does not necessarily work out so simply.
I think it would be wrong for us at the present time to think of scrapping the whole laborious system of subsidies in order to substitute something purely based on end price and hope that it affects the industry in the right way. This, I think, is a shibboleth. It may be that a different balance between the two might be the right answer, but I think hon. Members go overboard on this point and tat they are going overboard in the wrong direction.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the Minister admit that what the farmers are really after is a managed market that will be achieved only by some form of import regulation?

Mr. Buchan: I am merely saying that on the question of direct subsidies of o le kind or another—hill sheep, winter keep and so on—these cannot precisely be tied to development of a particular sector in terms of a managed market.
It is important that we do not go overboard on this. I think the hon. Member probably agrees with the point I am making here.
One or two points were made to the effect that the increase in the winter Estimates showed an inadequacy of planning. Of course, I could accept that there has not been the adequacy of planning in our agriculture that we might have had, although agriculture is one of the best planned industries we have in Britain despite that. But it does not follow that increases in the Winter Estimates are due to any inadequacy of planning.
One of the interesting increases, if I can find it, was the figure of £500,000 on the original estimate for the hill and upland sheep subsidy. It has now gone on the Winter Supplementary Estimate at over £2 million. This was not lack of planning; this was recognition that when we brought forward the payment in the previous year, the 15s. remained a

payment to be made plus the addition to be paid with the change of year, and this made this kind of thing inevitable. Similarly with the Supplementary Estimate on the winter keep grant of an additional £445,000. This stemmed from the fact that we introduced yet another benefit, the question of the option, and the whole point of an option is that people choose what it is they think best and tend to draw more money from Government revenue, and so there is an inevitable increase in this. But this, of course, makes sense. Similarly, the hill cattle subsidy. This again is not so much inadequacy of planning as, to some extent, successful planning. There were more cows, more cows were eligible for subsidy, and the subsidy was increased.
The original Winter Supply Estimate for the calf subsidy went up by £170,000 and this was also due to the increase in the calf subsidy of £1. As I list these, I am astonished at the failure occasionally to recognise the volume of additional points which we brought in last year precisely in this sector and I hope that it will begin to show results. I am sometimes depressed by hon. Members opposite—I am frequently depressed by them, come to think of it—when they use this opportunity not only to bring legitimate pressure to bear to direct one's thinking on what they think are the correct lines in the Annual Price Review, but also to produce a much stronger than necessary mood of depression.
This disappoints me, because another thing which we should consider is not only the system but the need for different methods in fattening and in considering the whole complex of hill lands and uplands and to see what technological change is possible to assist in this. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West will know a number of names concerned in a great deal of experimentation on these lines, and I am pleased that much research is going on. We should not think that an increase in the end product will solve the problem of hill sheep farming. It involves many other factors. It means more research, more prolificity, better husbandry and building methods, as well as opening up marketing opportunities. Like the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), I pay tribute to the Scottish Quality Lamb Association, which is a


great step forward since expansion of this market will benefit every one. This was launched last year and I hope that it will continue, because this kind of imaginative step is also necessary.
My conclusion is the usual one in these cases; things are neither as bad as hon. Members opposite say, nor as good as we sometimes say, but there is no reason for depression. Fortunately, with this natural alliance between the farmers and a Labour Government and the intelligent application of Socialist planning and thinking over the Annual Price Review, despite what hon. Members opposite say, we will solve our problems.

Orders of the Day — SEYCHELLES (GRANT-IN-AID)

11.34 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I am glad that the Minister of State is to reply to this short debate, because he knows the Seychelles very well. More than that, he knows the surrounding seas, because he was nearly drowned in them. I would add that, with that decency which one would expect from him, he rescued a member of my party on that occasion.
I am disturbed to find an increase in the Supplementary Estimate relating to the Seychelles of 100 per cent., which is substantial bearing in mind that there are only about 20,000 inhabitants. There are 92 islands, about a third of which are inhabited and I do not know why the administration should have increased so substantially as to require this Supplementary Estimate.
Various things have been happening in the Seychelles and although I have tried to piece events together, I still do not know what portion of the extra administration is in respect of this Estimate. One is the British Indian Ocean Territories, which have gained three islands from the Seychelles. The circumstances under which they have gained them and whether they continue to be administered by the Seychelles is not known to me. Such documents as I have unearthed do not clarify the position. I noticed in The Times the other day that the Cousin Island has a wonderful stock of flora and fauna, but I do not know whether that has added anything to the costs set out in the Estimate.
When I was in the Seychelles two years ago the Island of Mahé was promised an airstrip, which was to be built partially on the sea and partially on coral. That was to involve an expenditure of £6½ million. Has that been started? Has any sum been allocated for its building? Occasionally scraps of information appear in HANSARD in Oral and Written Answers, but they do not give one an idea of the whole picture.
A difficulty arose shortly after I left the Seychelles. Copra, which is the inside of the coconut, is exported in considerable quantities to India, but unfortunately India suffered devaluation. Have any additional costs been incurred by the Seychelles Government as a result of that?
A success story which has probably not resulted in any additional costs is that of tea, which grows at a considerable height in the Seychelles. People came to the Seychelles from Kenya and made a success of planting tea, which must grow above a certain height if it is to achieve a quality to make it successfully saleable and Mahé had this height. Agriculture generally has not met with the same success. A research and development building for agricultural purposes did exist, along with a model farm, but I am afraid that they were not popular with the local inhabitants. It was felt that a stronger effort should be made to popularise this agricultural research establishment and also the model farm. One was told that that would happen, but whether it has happened I have no way of finding out. I have no way of finding what would be the likely cost to the Supplementary Estimate of such developments.
Another matter which may be accounted for by part of this £100,000 may be the administration of aid which was being given to fishing and in particular to refrigeration of fish. One of the saddest sights, I was told, was out of the season when fish were rotting all over the seashore while at other times in season fish were in full spate and it was not possible to use them all. A suggestion was made just before we went there that a special effort should be made to deal with this question because there are many fish which could be dealt with at the flush time if they could be preserved to prevent near starvation. Has


any of the money in this Supplementary Estimate been spent on that? According to an Answer in HANSARD, help to be given up to the middle of 1968 amounts to £476,000. There is a substantial set of sums and we do not know how much has been spent and when the programme of expansion is likely to come to an end.
A matter of some importance arises for Sir Colville Deverell's report, which made proposals for constitutional advances. It is not clear when these were approved. Apparently they have been approved because an election was held on the basis of the recommendations as approved, with amendments, by the Secretary of State. I ask whether, in view of the fact that there was a different form of Government, a political Government arising from differences between the Seychelles Democratic Party and the People's United Party, as a result of that electoral conference, any moneys in this Supplementary Estimate have come about because of the change of Government?
These are very attractive islands. They are a long way from us. They are 1,000 miles from Mombasa and 1,700 miles from Bombay. They really do need a tremendous lot of development.
We stayed at the nicest place—except that where Archbishop Makarios stayed, which was, as it were, the piéce de résistance of Mahé. We stayed at the best hotel. We had a hot bath, but instead of the water coming in what for us is the normal way, through pipes, two buxom wenches—and they were charming—came along with a huge iron thing, in which there was very hot water. But that was the only way it could be served to us. Needless to say, we took full advantage of it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that that has anything to do with the Supplementary Estimates.

Sir E. Errington: That was—it may be an unfortunate word to use—my peroration, or my near-peroration.
What I was going to say was that these proposals for development are proposals which can do and will do a great deal of good, but I think we ought to know a little more about them. These matters ought not to be raised only in

discussion of Supplementary Estimates. We ought to know how these very large sums are being dealt with, what is happening to them; and we ought to take a greater interest than before in these very charming and very far off islands.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: May I intervene briefly to make only one point? But perhaps I may first of all say how indebted we all are to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) for having drawn attention to this dependency, remote as it is, far from us.
There are 90,000 islands, I understand, stretching over an area of 150,000 square miles of the western Indian Ocean. Once Mauritius obtains independence on 12th March next, the Seychelles, as I understand it, will be the last inhabited British dependency in the whole of the vast area stretching from East Africa to South-East Asia, and yet the fact is that, apart from the odd Question asked, I cannot recollect, in all the time I have in the House, any detailed reference to that dependency's affairs, to its government, to the prospects for its development. The last official Colonial Office report on the Seychelles—the Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong—is that for 1963–64, laid before this House in 1965.
Tonight we are limited to consideration of the Supplementary Estimate, the additional provision required for further issues of grant-in-aid and expenses of administration. Exactly what that covers my hon. Friend is seeking to discover. The additional sum of £100,000, considering the many millions we disburse in this country, is small, but, of course, it is relatively large in relation to the government of the Seychelles, and, of course, the revised provision, as my hon. Friend said, is exactly double he present provision, and that is a very sizeable increase.
I would be out of order, and you would very quickly bring me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I sought to raise wider issues, but there is one question I should like to put. I ask it without any knowledge at all. I think the House is entitled to an answer. My hon. Friend referred to an airstrip which it was proposed at one time to lay down. Discussions are going on in Mauritius, further to the


south, about our rights over the airfield after independence, but I would not expect the Minister to say anything about that tonight. In the altered circumstances in the Indian Ocean, with the withdrawal of British forces from the Persian Gulf and Singapore, the airfield in the Seychelles could assume considerable additional importance, and it would be interesting to know whether part of the increased provision has any relation to development there.
I hope that the Minister will agree that more than sporadic interest should be shown in the future of a territory for which, as far as we can see, Parliament and the country will be responsible for many years. I make a plea to him—and this is really why I rose—to help us get a full debate on the Seychelles, its problems, future, hopes, aspirations, and how it will fit into the new order of things in the Indian Ocean, at the earliest opportunity.
The fact that it is a small territory, is inhabited by no more than 40,000 to 50,000 people, and is remote from us, does not diminish the sense of care and responsibility that my hon. Friend, the Minister, and I and many of our colleagues feel for its future.

11.52 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas): The House is grateful to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) for bringing to our attention the additional Vote for the Seychelles, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for the tone in which he addressed himself to the subject.
I was one of two hon. Members in the first Parliamentary delegation ever to visit the Seychelles, about 10 years ago. I went with Mr. Paul Williams, who is no longer with us in the House, though he may one day return. My visit created in me a warm affection for a proud people. They are almost more British than we are. The population started largely through the Royal Navy intercepting slave ships and setting the people free on one little island. They have never forgotten it. They look upon us as the land of the free and feel part of us. There is no call to break away.

Because these people lean to us so much, it is only right and proper that the House should give time to considering the extra money asked for. I hope that the hon. Member for Essex, South-East will have his wish and that we shall one day have a fuller debate on the Seychelles.
By a little slip of the tongue the hon. Gentleman referred to 90,000 islands. According to the hon. Member for Aldershot there are 92, and according to my brief there are 89. I am not often guilty of under-statement——

Mr. Braine: I may occasionally be guilty of exaggeration, but I do not multiply things a thousandfold. I thought that I said 90 islands, spread over 150,000 square miles.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman said 90,000. We were all agitated on behalf of the hon. Member for Aldershot. It is only 89 according to the Commonwealth Office.
This Supplementary Estimate is easily explained. They are due in part to a revised salary claim award made in the Seychelles during the year. The rate of wages there has been very low for many years and neither side of the House can take much credit for the amount of development aid given to the Seychelles over the years.
From 1945—a date rather like 1066 to me as a turning point in our history—until 1957, the total of development aid given to the Seychelles was less than £300,000. When I was there 10 years ago, the average wage was £3 10s. a month. The poor creatures lived in the main on rice and dried fish—mostly fish. Wages have now been improved for those in the public service and that is a major part of the increased Estimate.
The hon. Gentleman is right to assume that the election there has had a bearing on the expenditure. We all know that elections are expensive items and this was an expense for the Seychelles. In addition, the administrative cost of a more democratic Government has naturally gone upwards. No doubt—and I am bearing in mind yesterday's debate—the number of civil servants has gone up, although I cannot speak with authority on that. However, the public servants are better paid than they were and that


is a comfort. Paid chairmen of committees are being appointed out of the eight Members elected and this, too, contributes to the total before this House.
I was asked about the refrigeration scheme. Talks are still going on and tine money has not been raised, but it is hoped that it will be raised from a very good cause whose name will be familiar to all hon. Members.

Sir E. Errington: It is always a case of "jam tomorrow" for the Seychelles. There is a project costing £6 million and one of £500,000, but nothing happens and they get nowhere. Is there any way in which the matter can be dealt with by the administrative gentlemen who are getting higher salaries?

Mr. Thomas: It is not a rich island. It has to look outside for its help. I gather that the hon. Gentleman is asking about the fact that the aid is being increased so much. If he is complaining that we are not giving enough, I have no objection to that.

Mr. Braine: The Minister of State said that one of the reasons for the increased Estimate may well be an increase in the number of civil servants. We should like to know whether any part of the increase in the number of officials bears any relation to the airstrip which was proposed and which, in the altered circumstances of today, we would expect to be laid down.

Mr. Thomas: I do not want to mislead the House—I have watched over the years, those who have done so, from the other side of the House, of course. I think that I had better say at once that there is nothing in the notes that I have gathered together about an increase in the number of civil servants. It was just a passing thought and it could land me in trouble. I do know that there has been an increase in salary.
It is true that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to meet the cost of building a civil airport in the Seychelles to provide a link with the Indian and African mainlands. I hope that work will begin towards the end of this year, and that it will be finished before the end of 1970.

Sir E. Errington: Was it not promised three years ago?

Mr. Thomas: I think that it was talked about three years ago, I would now like to say that a firm commitment was made. My right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of Housing and Local Government, made the promise in 1965, which I have now repeated, giving his exact words. I believe that the airstrip, when it is built, will make all the difference in the world to the Seychelles.
There is not a better place for tourists in the world—except Wales. The climate is attractive, the scenery is unparalleled in its beauty, the water that laps the shores is as pleasant as a warm bath. It is an ideal place. Once the airstrip is there the island will thrive. Apparently exciting things happen there. The hon. Gentleman may be sure that the experience he recounted, of someone else, would be unlikely to take place elsewhere. It is not one of the tourist attractions of Wales.
The Seychelles is full of problems, like Mauritius. It is dependent on copra. Its agricultural husbandry is sadly in need of an overhaul and money has been advanced from C.D. and W. funds to try to improve husbandry. Whoever has the responsibility for tackling the problem —and I do not envy the Governor, who tackles the problem with great courage—deserves the support of this House, and I trust that the Estimates which have been put before the House will be approved.

Orders of the Day — ALUMINIUM SMELTERS

12.4 a.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I recognise that the debates this evening have been restricted to the Supplementary Estimates that are before the House. Therefore, I cannot say all that I might have said on the possibility of the provision of aluminium smelters in Scotland, or anywhere else. There is in the Estimates provision for the Ministry of Power to reimburse the electricity and gas boards for using more coal than they might otherwise have done.
In page 13 of the Supplementary Estimates, presented to the House on 30th November, £45 million is shown as being the likely provision of moneys for this purpose between July, 1967 and April,


1971, but since that Estimate was presented there have been important developments, arising principally from the speech made by the Prime Minister at the Labour Party conference in October last.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend then said that the Government were ready
… to discuss with the aluminium industry the provision of one or more giant smelters, competitively powered with nuclear electricity.
He went on to say that the coal industry had nothing to fear from this development. Indeed, he went further. He said:
… there is a possibility—which I am now discussing with the Chairman of the N.C.B.—of associating the coal industry with this type of project.
This is a new development which might conceivably influence the figures given in the Supplementary Estimate.
No one would, or could, seriously object to the thinking and the principles which inspired the Prime Minister's statement of policy. The implications of its implementation would have an enormous impact on our balance of payments problem. I understand that we imported about 340,000 tons in 1966—I have seen varying figures—and it will probably be in the region of 400,000 tons by 1970, with figures rising by about 8 per cent. a year. On current imports, our bill could be reduced by about £70 million a year. But before the Supplementary Estimates were presented devaluation was announced, and that has increased the balance of payments advantage, since the cost of the raw material—alumina—will have risen less than the price of the metal itself.
The smelters should, I suggest—and I believe that this is the view of the Government—be sited in development areas, and Scotland, the North-East, and various parts of Wales have been mentioned. Big new male-employing industries with prospects of rapid future development and growth are precisely the kind of industries required and desired by those areas. There is an urgent need to get these projects started, and I do not think that this ought to be prejudiced by the unseemly squabbling going on between the Chairman of the Electricity Council, the Chairman of the N.C.B., and now the National Steel Corporation.
The Government have to find the right answer to this extremely complex matter, whilst at the same time safeguarding the legitimate rights of the miners—and we who represent them have the duty and the obligation in the House to protect their interests—the electricity consumers, the aluminium users, the people in the development areas and, not least, our E.F.T.A. partners.
It is a tall order to satisfy all these legitimate interests, and the Government may find it impossible completely to satisfy all of them. I was going to outline the developments in this in the last 18 months, but suffice it to say that proposals recently put forward by Alcan Aluminium (U.K.) Ltd. for the provision of a smelter and coal-fired power station to fuel the smelter; the announcement that they had made an agreement with the National Coal Board at a price per therm which has never been disclosed, but has been generally estimated to be about 3d., as against an average of about 5d. a therm currently being paid by the Electricity Generating Board, may throw into serious question the figures in the Supplementary Estimate we are now discussing.
We who represent Scottish constituencies are anxious that this project should have serious consideration. Aluminium smelting at Invergordon, with a coal-fired generating station fired with Scottish coal, would make an enormous impact on the entire economy of Scotland, and not least the Scottish mining industry. Being a representative of one of the Fife constituencies, I have a great interest, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter), who is a N.U.M.-sponsored Member of Parliament. We are anxious that there should be at least an examination of the possibility of reopening the Michael Colliery in Fife, and using that coal, not necessarily to fire this power station, but to use it for domestic purposes. A lot of domestic consumers now get unsatisfactory coal which might conceivably be used to fire the aluminium smelter at Invergordon.

Mr. John H. Osborn: It may be unfair at this late hour to ask whether the hon. Member has any idea of the pithead cost of producing that coal. The answer would help


now, but otherwise he could put down a Parliamentary Question.

Mr. Hamilton: One difficulty in this debate is that we have just not got the facts on which to make this estimate. One purpose of this debate is that before the Government reaches a decision, not after, this House ought to be acquainted with all the relevant facts on which the decision is based so that we may be in a better position to assess the merits or demerits of the Government decision. We ought to be in that position before the decision is taken, and that is why I am making this plea tonight. I know that the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has been busy examining the various tenders and proposals put forward for smelters, and I understand that the report of the Corporation was placed in the hands of the Board of Trade two or three weeks ago, early in January.
But the new Alcan proposal, which is now based on coal as distinct from a power supply by the Hydro-Electric Board, is a new factor in the situation. I should not have thought that the Minister will be in a position tonight to give us a categorical statement of policy on this matter. I hope that he will not do so since the House is entitled to many more facts before any pronouncement is made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): As to whether or not the Minister is able to give an answer tonight, I must point out that the hon. Member is raising a very wide subject, and it is only relevant to this debate if it has some close connection with the particular Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hamilton: I thought that I was doing very well.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought the hon. Member was doing well up to a certain point. He was entitled to raise this, but it would not be right for me to allow in this debate on the Supplementary Estimate a general discussion about this proposal for aluminium smelters, because it does not strictly arise out of the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Hamilton: I entirely agree, but the-e is provision in the Supplementary Estimate for £45 million between now and 1971 to help the electricity and gas industries to consume more coal than they otherwise would have done. I fear

that what is happening now is that the Coal Board is in bad odour with the Electricity Council because of the deal which it is alleged to have made with Alcan, and this might affect the validity of the figures in the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be for the assistance of the House if I pointed out that, although in this Supplementary Estimate there is reference to the fact that the total which may be granted up to March, 1971, is £45 million, it would not be in order to discuss on these particular Supplementary Estimates how the whole of that £45 million is going to be spent between now and 1971. All we are concerned with tonight is the Supplementary Estimate on page 13, which is for £5,250,000.

Mr. Hamilton: I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think I have made my point, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make a suitable reply.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on the skilful way in which he has presented the case and kept himself in order. Although the global figure is £45 million, this particular Estimate is a matter of concern, but I accept that tonight we shall have to concentrate on the smaller figure.
The whole concept of this discussion at present is on the decision to embark on an aluminium smelter programme and on the competition between nuclear energy and conventional power from coal fired thermal power stations. Since our debates on the Coal Industry Bill, I have elicited a good deal of constructive information, mainly from the Parliamentary Secretary who has answered all my questions very fully, and I should like to express our appreciation.
In the context of aluminium smelters and of the requirements of industry as a whole, any trend providing us with cheaper electricity is to be welcomed. We are told that, when the fast breeder reactor is implemented, the nuclear power programme will give us that, and, whatever we may say now or later on, the advent of cheap electricity will be of benefit to us all.
Another feature is that we have two sources of electricity in the future. One might even include oil-fired stations, because it is quite obvious from comments in the Press that, had the fuel tax been eliminated, oil-fired conventional power stations would have also helped produce electricity cheaply. The consequence of all this is that the Government have found it opportune to introduce new industries using cheap electricity.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that I shall catch your eye in the debate on the Industrial Expansion Bill, and I should have liked to discuss the merits and demerits of the Government's decision to take an active interest in introducing an aluminium smelting industry to the country. Instead, I think that it would be more useful to refer to some of the Questions which I have tabled recently.
Naturally enough, in a complex issue of this sort, the problem is to know which Ministry is to shepherd projects of this type through their early stages. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power is to answer this debate, because it deals with an Estimate with which he is involved. However, the original statement from the Prime Minister was accompanied by a Press release by the D.E.A. on 4th October, and this is the purpose of a Question which I have now tabled to the Prime Minister.
An interesting and relevant feature is that the Government have decided that, in selected cases where they consider it to be in the national interest to supply a new or possibly to avoid the loss of an existing very large demand for electricity arising at one place for a particular industrial development, they will authorise the Generating Boards to negotiate special contracts for long-term supplies. This is where the £5 million comes in in the short-term and the £45 million in the long-term. Furthermore, the statement envisages that, under these contracts, the user will provide finance equivalent to the capital cost of the specified power generating capacity. That was thought of originally in terms of nuclear energy, but now it could be in terms of coal-fired thermal power.
I was concerned about the rôle which the I.R.C. would play. Quite obviously, the D.E.A. started this off. But, of course, the decision will not be given by the

Minister of Power or his Parliamentary Secretary. On 25th January, I asked the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs:
… what role he has asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation to take in assisting the setting up of an aluminium smelting industry in this country.
His Joint Under-Secretary of State replied:
My right hon. Friend asked the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation last October to undertake a full evaluation of the proposals for aluminium smelters which we expected to receive from the aluminium companies on the basis of the special electricity arrangements. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, subsequently referred to them the proposals received on this basis, and they have submitted a report to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 160]
So, in this connection, the I.R.C. has reported to the Board of Trade.
If I may refer to the background to this debate, I believe the first company in the field was Rio Tinto Zinc. It produced a well thought out scheme and explored every possibility, both following and before the Prime Minister's statement, using nuclear energy. But that scheme had to take into account the fact that the fast breeder reactor will not be available for perhaps 10 or 15 years, and therefore the possibility of an element of subsidy certainly arises.
We also have the White Paper on Fuel Policy, which we debated in December——

Mr. David Lane: It was withdrawn.

Mr. Osborn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's correction. But, although it was withdrawn during the debate on the Coal Industry Bill, we debated some of the facts—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The White Paper was not withdrawn. That has been made clear on several occasions, both in the House and elsewhere.

Mr. Osborn: I stand corrected. I think the Parliamentary Secretary is right. The facts in it are probably accurate, and certainly here we have the facts in it to consider.

Mr. Peter Emery: I think this point should be cleared up. A debate was arranged on the White


Paper, but the Leader of the House decided that that debate would not proceed. Instead we had the Second Reading and the stages consequential to that of the Coal Industry Bill, when many of the paragraphs and conclusions of the White Paper were considered. The White Paper on Fuel Policy is supposedly under revision and many of us want to know when it is coming back and what are the conclusions of the Ministry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that arises on a debate on Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Osborn: I will accept that. But this shows that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was right when I intervened and asked about tile price. We want to know the facts; we want to know much more than is available in this particular White Paper. Undoubtedly one element is that we have over capacity of electricity generation. We shall want to know the facts about the extent of that over capacity and the extent to which cheaper electricity will be made available.
When the Prime Minister made his announcement at Scarborough, there were many articles in the technical and financial press dealing with the price of electricity and we had the subsequent debate on the Coal Industry Bill concerned with this £45 million.
The background to aluminium smelting is that in Norway, Canada and elsewhere —I will try to illustrate the position and the House should bear these figures in mind—the cost of hydro-electricity used for aluminium smelting is 0·2 pence per unit from existing hydro-electric power stations, some of which are very old. It is also true to say that the newer power stations will not have quite the ready supplies of cheap water for hydroelectricity generation and will probably be more costly to build, but they could be depreciated over a further range of time.
Before the Chairman of the Coal Board moved in and before the debate on the £45 million, Press comment was to the effect that at 0·37 pence per unit Rio Tinto Zinc should find this reasonable for use for smelting aluminium in this country. The figure I have from the Annual Report of the C.E.G.B. is that

the production cost of electricity was 0·67 pence per unit and the average selling price 1·19 pence per unit.
Today I asked the Parliamentary Secretary:
To ask the Minister of Power what is now the average generating cost per unit of electricity, as produced at the power station, and the average selling price per unit of electricity to the user whether domestic or industrial….
The reply was:
The average cost of electricity sold by the Central Electricity Generating Board to Area Electricity Boards in 1966–67 was 1·28 pence per unit, of which about an eighth was accounted for by the cost of transmission and C.E.G.B. overheads. The average cost to final consumers was 1·78 pence per unit.
The country must bear in mind that the lower bracket is now 0·2 pence—or 0·25 pence to be generous—against 1·78 pence, which the Parliamentary Secretary gave me in answer to my Question today. This needs further investigation, and shows that we need to be given more facts.
The aluminium smelting industry must bear in mind that it is not so much the cost of electricity now that affects it, but the cost in future. This comes back to the proverbial debate on the comparison of cost between nuclear and conventional power stations. On 23rd January of this year I asked the Minister of Power two Questions. First,
what is the capital cost per kilowatt and cost per unit produced based on most recent estimates of the most advanced nuclear power station offered to the Central Electricity Generating Board",
and the Minister replied:
The C.E.G.B.'s estimate of the construction cost of Hinkley Point B is £73/kW and of the base load generating cost, including capital charges, is 0·52d./kWh."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 78.]
Based on Drax, we have a conventional power figure of 0·60d./kWh. I appreciate that at this hour of the night these figures will take time to absorb, but this is the sort of problem that we are up against.
In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), the Prime Minister said on 14th November:
The arrangements now being discussed between interested companies and the generating boards would neither involve an Exchequer subvention nor an increase in the cost of electricity to other users …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 737, c. 213.]


We are debating an Estimate for this very purpose, and we have here a contradiction of it by the Prime Minister's statement in November. I had hoped to discuss other matters, for instance the Norwegian Minister of Trade, Mr. Willuch, has been here. The Norwegians and our other E.F.T.A. partners are concerned about this element of subsidy in fuel costs, and what is likely to be the cost of fuel, whether with a subsidy or conventionally? It is reported that Rio Tinto Zinc might accept a slightly higher figure, but we come to various important conclusions, some of which I shall have to elaborate at some other time.
This week we have had the spectacle, as the hon. Member for Fife, West has shown, of the Chairman of the Steel Corporation, or someone acting for him, negotiating with the National Coal Board in view of the Board's offer to ship coal, presumably from the North-East coast or the Midlands, to a site in Scotland for a coal-fired thermal power station. We have no evidence on which to work, but one newspaper report says that the Steel Corporation is paying 1·2d. per unit. This is assuming that the cost of the coal is about 3·25d. per therm.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to appear difficult, but I was pulled up by your predecessor who said that we were discussing a very narrow Supplementary Estimate. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being allowed much more scope than I was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): The hon. Member will realise that I have just taken the Chair. I shall listen carefully to the debate. I understood that the hon. Member was kept very narrowly to the Supplementary Estimate. I shall attempt to do the same with the hon. Member who has the Floor.

Mr. Osborn: I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will have to be guided by me. I have discarded about three-quarters of my notes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to be guided by the Standing Order.

Mr. Osborn: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are dealing with an expenditure of £5 million out of a figure of £45 million.
There is an interesting regional aspect which we should consider. Following the Second Reading debate on the Coal Industry Bill I was concerned about the pithead cost of coal from the collieries, and on 19th December last I asked a Question to which I received the interesting Answer that there were 14 collieries with a cost range per therm up to 3d. and a cost per ton at the pithead of 56s. 4d. The point is that there are thermal power stations near cheap coal, which should enable us to have cheap coal-fired power stations.
I should like to know not only which are the most efficient 14 collieries but which are the most efficient 25. On 23rd January I asked the Minister of Power
on the assumption that the average cost of coal supplied by the National Coal Board is 3d. per therm, what estimate he has made of the generating cost of electricity per unit, based on generating costs for the most advanced coal-fired power stations in the country and on the fact that the power station is sited near the pithead."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 79.]
His answer was 0·55d.
Yesterday I asked the Minister the further Question
on the basis that the average pithead cost per ton of coal of the 14 most efficient collieries is 56s. 4d. what estimate he has made of the pithead cost per ton of coal suitable for use by the Central Electricity Generating Board from those collieries; and on the basis that this coal is supplied to a power station sited near the pithead and that generating costs are for the most advanced coal-fired stations what estimate he has made of the generating cost per unit from such a coal-fired power station.
The interesting Answer was that it was 0·52d. per kWh.
The interesting feature of all this is that the discussions going on between the Coal Board and the Ministry of Power and the users indicate that with a little subsidy the most efficient coal-fired thermal stations, where the cost is cheap, give a generating cost very close to that calculated for the latest nuclear power stations. That is very interesting to hon. Members with constituencies in the centre of England—in Yorkshire and the East Midlands. That is why the industrialists in the Sheffield area—particularly those


in the steel industry—have been concerned about having to pay too much for their electricity.
It could be that in the centre of England, where there is no development area and there is no benefit of the 45 per cent. grant, and industrialists are struggling in a competitive environment, the Yorkshire and Humberude region—and especially South Yorkshire—could negotiate terms which would be realistic in respect of costs.
What is the position now? Because the Government decided at Scarborough four months ago to bring in the aluminium smelting industry an economic situation has become a political issue. We have unnecessary interventionism by the Government. If the Prime Minister's statement to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne)
accurate, he made a promise that there was no element of subsidy, but we are talking about a subsidy of £5 million from the Coal Board to electricity users or the Central Electricity Generating Board. With these reservations, any viable project for aluminium smelting—whether nuclear powered or thermal powered—is to be welcomed. What is to be scrutinised is any project subject to heavy subsidy.
Is this a 25-year contract the Chairman of the Coal Board has offered? What guarantee has he of a 25-year contract for transport of coal? And what guarantee has he of stable prices?
Now the Government will be making a decision, and I hope the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) will agree with me that what we want are more facts—facts about the generating costs of nuclear-powered electricity, facts about how this subsidy will be used.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will respond to the initiative I have taken and take this opportunity of presenting these facts in concrete form so that the country can understand them.

12.49 a.m.

Mr. Adam Hunter: I understood when I saw the title of the subject of the hon. Member For Fife, West, tonight—"Implications of the construction of aluminium smelters for the national fuel policy"—that this could be a wide-ranging debate on the coal mining industry, because the coal

mining industry is, after all, a very integral part of the fuel industries of this country. I was very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to find that your predecessor restrained my hon. Friend considerably in his approach to this subject. However, I am very conscious of rules, I have always conformed to rules, and tonight I wish to abide by them.
But I would like to point out that the whole of the total Supplementary Estimate from now to 1971 is £45 million, while the supplementary estimate mentioned here is £5,250,000. Now this may seem coincidental, but to me this is just the amount required to open the Michael Colliery in East Fife.
Now this, I understand, has been a matter of considerable pressure upon the Minister of Power. Lord Robens, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, has said he cannot open the Michael Colliery at this time. He says this in view of the fact that he thinks the marketing prospects for coal in Scotland would not be sufficient to justify the reopening of this colliery.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have no wish to carry on this debate in an out of order fashion, but I think it is plain to see, and I should tell the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), that in East Fife the Michael Colliery has been seen as a viable unit of production for many years, and Lord Robens himself has indicated to several hon. Members that it would still be a commercial proposition in the future if it was reopened.
So I sincerely hope, Parliamentary Secretary, that when the time comes you will seriously consider the question of reopening Michael Colliery and that if the Chairman of the National Coal Board cannot find the money to do so you, as Parliamentary Secretary, will use your influence to get this carried out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must use the customary and traditional forms of address when addressing the Parliamentary Secretary or any other hon. Member of the House.

Mr. Hunter: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would just say this in conclusion. I feel that it is the responsibility of this Government to see that the Michael Colliery is reopened. I think, like the hon. Gentleman opposite,


that this project put forward by Alcan is a wonderful set-up. There could be no better business venture than coal being hauled from the colliery by rail, put into ship at Methil Docks and from there ship hauled up the East Coast to Invergordon. That would be a splendid industrial complex. I hope that the Minister will consider reopening Michael Colliery to provide jobs and security for the miners and their families in the area.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I will raise only a few points so as to stay in order. Only a week ago, we had no answers from the Minister to similar questions so I congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on raising a matter of such interest to the whole country, not only to Scotland. We must make it clear that the Alcan offer and the subsequent agreement with the Coal Board for the smelter does not rule out a smelter for Scotland, even if not fired by coal. This seems something which the local Press does not fully understand.
If the Government's policy is to have aluminium smelters, there is every reason to have one in Scotland and British Aluminium has also made suggestions for this. Economic balance in fuel policy is important, irrespective of how the smelter is fired. I hope that the Minister will make that clear.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Adam Hunter) has a close constituency interest in seeking the welfare of his constituents and I bow to him in this, but I am sure that he understands that, in furthering the policy of aluminium smelters, there will probably be two. Scotland and Wales, or perhaps one in the North-East, have been mentioned as sites. But if there were two, whether nuclear- or coal-powered, there would be one in Scotland.
I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to re-state what I thought the Prime Minister made clear in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) just before Christmas. As so often with the Prime Minister, what seems clear at one moment may not be clear a few months later, which is why I want a clear answer now. Is it still Government policy to ensure that there

is no direct or hidden subsidy for an aluminium smelter borne by other fuel users? There could be little doubt from his reply that, as long as coal could compete economically without a subsidy, it should be considered, but there would be no consideration with a subsidy.
I now begin to wonder, because my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and I have put down certain Questions to the Prime Minister about the subsidy which, for some strange reason, I was notified today, have been transferred to the President of the Board of Trade.
That immediately casts doubt in my mind. Perhaps I am suspicious, but when considering this Estimate, and particularly the fuel smelters within it, it is clear that, within the fuel White Paper and in our consideration of the fuel policy, there should be no hidden subsidy. I want it made clear that there will be no fuel subsidy in considering any aluminium smelter.
I again ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter and explain how it can possibly be in the nation's interest to have voted by Parliament sums of £45 million and £8 million for high-cost coal and yet stand a chance of agreeing that coal can be supplied for 3d. or 3¼d. a therm for a smelter in Scotland. This is no equalisation of the overall price for coal.
The Parliamentary Secretary will know that his right hon. Friend told me, in effect, "The Chairman of the N.C.B. must be allowed to make a commercial deal". What about commercial deals with other people? If cheap fuel is to be provided, why not provide it to the Central Electricity Generating Board to reduce its overall prices so that the ordinary consumer, the taxpayer, may benefit, and not one specific firm? It has been made clear by the Chairman of the C.E.G.B. that he would welcome fuel at the price that the Chairman of the N.C.B. is considering in the aluminium smelter deal between Alcan and the N.C.B.
We are, therefore, considering if not a direct subsidy in fuel costs, then a hidden subsidy by suggesting in the present arrangement that coal shall be supplied at a price lower than that at which other industries can obtain it, and which the electricity authorities and gas boards can


obtain it for the generation of their secondary fuels. We must be given the facts and tonight the Government have an opportunity to provide them.
In considering long-term contracts for fuel—as have been outlined by the Chairman of the N.C.B.—I asked the right hon. Gentleman if there was any escalation clause in the price. On a commercial matter, this is of the utmost importance because if we do not have this information, it means that a set price for 20 or 25 years would be an ever-increasing problem for the N.C.B. Indeed, as inflation goes on over that period, we it might find the subsidisation growing beyond all proportion. If such a long-term deal were arranged, would the Minister insist that a proper escalation clause was included to protect the income of the N.C.B.?
In consideration of any fuel smelter project, what is the thinking of the Government about industry doing its own building of a power plant and thereby obtaining an industrial development giant for that building as opposed to the original scheme whereby this would be done in conjunction with the Central Electricity Generating Board or the Atomic Energy Authority? This is of importance because of the amount of money that would have to go to aid industry in generating electrical capacity. If a fuel smelter project goes forward with a firm building the plant, an industrial development of £20 million may be involved. If not, the cost would be thrown back on to the nationalised fuel boards and this Estimate would be related to the fact that the cost would be borne by the nationalised industries with a contribution from the smelter firm. It is of the greatest importance, particularly concerning our friends in N.A.T.O. and E.F.T.A., that we should not be providing a hidden subsidy which they are so concerned about in any smelter policy.
I sum up my four basic questions. Can the Parliamentary Secretary make clear that whatever happens, Scotland will be looked after? Can he make absolutely clear the position about subsidisation? Will he give an answer on the question of escalation and can he let me know the Government's thinking on industrial development grants which could be given on one of the two methods of approach to smelter policy? If we can have

answers to these questions, we shall be a little further on than we were before this debate.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Edwin Brooks: My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is to be congratulated and thanked for initiating this most important debate. I think I speak for hon. Members in all parts of the House in expressing regret that he was struck down in his prime when opening the debate and, owing perhaps to rigid rules of order, was temporarily suspended from defending his views in this House. We trust that this will not become a regular pattern.
The debate this evening is one of the most important debates which have come before the House for some time. Although tonight we are necessarily restricted to looking at the matter from one or two special aspects, it nevertheless raises extremely fundamental questions about the whole future relationship between the Government and private industry in a field which is as intricate as it is important for the future well-being of the country.
The Supplementary Estimates we have before us refer specifically to an extra demand under the heading, "Assistance to the Coal Industry". It is surely quite proper that we should discuss tonight some of the implications of what we can loosely call a subsidy to one of the fuels which competes with others in our national energy programme. This particular payment also refers specifically to pit closures. Those who have been following the now quite violent exchanges over the proposed Alcan smelter will know that one of the allegations is that a pit, or pits, which might have been closed because of high costs of operation and production may survive if the agreement between Alcan and the N.C.B. is confirmed. Therefore, it does seem to me perfectly appropriate tonight to discuss some of the implications of the current controversy over the aluminium smelting suggestions.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn), referred to some of the apparent conflict of information which has been made available to Members of this House, the conflict, for example, regarding the relative costs of generating electricity from nuclear fuels


and from conventional fuels. This is, of course, a particular difficult problem, and the more one goes into it the more one finds the horizon recedes as one pursues the truth. For example, in the Thirteenth Annual Report and Accounts, for 1966–67, of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority there is confirmation, more or less, of the cost comparisons which were drawn by the hon. Gentleman some time earlier. I think he referred to a contrast of some 0·08d. per unit between the A.G.R. station at Hinckley Point and the most efficient current conventional power station. In paragraph 19 of the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General on the Report and Accounts of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority he states as follows:
The first A.G.R. station was assumed, even on conservative estimates of its future performance and operating life, to have a unit cost advantage of about 0·07d. per unit over conventional power stations.
He goes on to point out that there was an advantage of about 0·03d. per unit over the best nuclear power station of foreign design, a figure relating, I think, to some two or three years ago. It is likely, of course, that as time goes on, as the A.G.R. stations themselves, in the present phase of development up to the mid nineteen-seventies, are improved, this differential will tend to widen still further.
When we talk about a subsidy to the coal industry—and considerable play has been made with that tonight, and is implicit in the Estimate before us—then
it is worth remembering that the Central Electricity Generating Board may well have been subsidised effectively by the taxpayer as the result of the extremely low royalties which have been charged on the A.G.R. stations and which is described in considerable detail by the Comptroller and Auditor General. For example, thought it is the case that there is a differential of 0·07d. per unit, as we have seen, between the conventional power stations and the A.G.R. stations, the royalties chargeable to the electricity boards will amount to a rate of only 0·014d. per unit, one-fifth of that differential, and indeed, only about one-half of the differential which exists between the A.G.R.s and their most efficient American competitor.
To put this in gross terms, the Atomic Energy Authority's expenditure up to 31st March, 1967, in developing the nuclear system was some £89 million. If one works out the royalty payments which are now anticipated by the agreement of approximately a year ago—the agreement I referred to a moment ago in quoting the 0·014d. per unit rate—one finds, calculating this on a discounted cash flow at 8 per cent. per annum compound, that the recovery will represent a present worth of £20 million in 1967, or £69 million of effective subsidy to the A.G.R. programme.
So I think we ought to keep these facts in mind when we talk of subsidy element in the fuel and energy programme in this country. Remember that there is a considerable burden of research and development costs of nuclear energy policy which could, I suppose, in the context of the aluminium smelting proposals, equally be called by the Norwegians a subsidy as that one they are now protesting about in relation to coal.
I have a number of brief questions to ask arising out of the theme of this debate. I think it would be interesting to know why the Government apparently changed their mind, some time in December, it would appear, over the coal-based power source. Although there was originally a suggestion that the National Coal Board would be involved in discussions I think that it was quite clear from the whole of the informed discussion last October and November that a nuclear programme was anticipated. Yet we now have an opening for the N.C.B. through which it has readily jumped.
One appreciates the difficulty of asking for information on what might purport to be a straightforward commercial proposal. But these are questions to which we should know answers before irrevocable decisions are taken by the Government. Has Alcan offered speedy repayment of the £50 million which I understand it has on loan, and which was not repayable for some years, in an effort to get permission for the Invergordon project? While on the face of it this would appear to be a very understandable carrot for the Government, there would seem to me to be rather serious implications in a trend whereby, apparently, a sort of bribe is offered to


the Government to do something they would not do on the merits of the case.
It would be interesting to know a global figure for the extent of the investment grants payable to Alcan in the event of its developing on a commercial basis its Invergordon project with a coal-based power source, and what price would be sought for the N.C.B. coal supplied to Alcan. We have heard various figures tonight. This is a point on which we unquestionably come very close to the Supplementary Estimates. If we are talking of subsidies to the coal industry, which are a charge on the taxpayer in order to ensure that the rundown of the industry is not as catastrophic as it might otherwise be, it is important to know whether, when the N.C.B. offers coal at a much lower price than that at which it offers it to other consumers of its product, the price reflects the marginal cost of the pits from which it is being sent, or whether it is a sort of bonus to this relatively late consumer and is, in effect, a form of disguised subsidy from the taxpayer in the long run.
When we talk about the marginal costing policy suggested for this aluminium smelting programme, it would be interesting to know whether it is the Government's considered view that this is not hostile to the spirit and set-up of the European Free Trade Area. Discussions are taking place now, but we should know their outcome, and to what extent there is no danger in pursuing this matter further.
It would be useful to know at this stage, before we swallow the N.C.B. case hook, line and sinker, what criteria will be employed in the future in giving preferential treatment to a particular firm or industry when coal is offered to it at cheap rates. It seems to me that this opens the door to a very dangerous possibility. One can understand a flat subsidy across the board from taxation going to all those who are using coal or any other material. But it is a dangerous trend when those supplying a product in which there is a large element of subsidy are given apparent discretion to determine which supplier shall be favoured. We need to have the criteria defined precisely now, and not find ourselves in great difficulties later.
The final point that it is important to make on the problem of coal versus

nuclear fuel in the Invergordon project is that although there are many ambiguities about costs it is broadly true that all expert opinion expects that as the years go by the differential between the costs of nuclear and conventional energy will widen.
Therefore, there seems a case for arguing that the benefits of this cheaper nuclear energy as it becomes available might well be provided to growth industries so that they could establish themselves on a secure basis. That would clearly be advantageous for the aluminium industry, in which there is a great demand for cheap energy.
But if we are to have a situation, for perhaps the next ten years, of extreme competition between coal and nuclear energy, in which the N.C.B. is empowered to charge differential rates to supplier which in no way correspond to the efficiency of pits but reflect the juggling of figures by the Board, then the community as a whole will suffer, and it will in many ways be damaging to the long term development of the nuclear programme.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. David Lane: I welcome the debate because it is an opportunity to probe the Government on a major issue while they are still in the throes of taking a decision about it instead of our being presented as usual with a fait accompli. I hope that we have more opportunities of this kind.
This Supplementary Estimate springs out of the Coal Industry Act, which in turn sprang from the White Paper on Fuel Policy, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us when the White Paper will reappear and when we shall be able to have a debate about it. On my reading of the White Paper, its theme was that we must have cheap energy, with strictly limited assistance to coal from public funds—and this is where the Estimate comes in—for the purpose of giving special help to miners and making it possible for the industry to contract in an orderly fashion. Many of us supported the White Paper on the understanding that that was all the extra burden on public funds envisaged. On that understanding, too, we passed the Coal Industry Act and accepted the original supplementary Estimates.
Against that background, I find myself exceedingly alarmed by this reported offer of a long-term coal contract to Alcan at a very low price. I want to give three grounds for my alarm. First, it seems to me that such a low price must increase over the years the losses of the N.C.B.—out of which this current Supplementary Estimate has arisen—which will lead to another borrowing Bill. That would be wholly wrong.
We challenged the Minister about this on Monday last week but all we got was a courteous series of non-answers. On one aspect which I wish to emphasise, the right hon. Gentleman said:
No details are available, and no contract has been signed. It is a question of straight, commercial negotiations between the two parties, and it would be quite wrong for me to disclose details of commercial negotiations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968 Vol. 757, c. 153.]
That is a very different story from that of the negotiations which have been going on in the light of day for months between the Gas Council and the oil companies over the price of North Sea gas. Month after month, we have had figures bandied about concerning what the Gas Council was prepared to pay, and we are entitled to an explanation as to why there is this secrecy about the N.C.B.'s offer to Alcan when there was no secrecy whatever over the Gas Council's wishes for North Sea gas. I beg the Minister to stop sheltering behind a bogus screen of secrecy. This issue is of intense concern to the public and I warmly support what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said about the need to get the facts in the open as soon as possible.
Secondly, there is a real danger, through this reported offer, of getting at odds with our E.F.T.A. partners in Norway, and I am sure that none of us wants this. Thirdly, even if the National Coal Board could demonstrate that this contract would be justifiable commercially, we cannot possibly look at it in isolation, whatever the Minister appeared to have implied in his answer, or half-answer, to our questioning last week.
We have in mind the Prime Minister's answer last November which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has

mentioned. I, too, have had a Question to the Prime Minister transferred to the President of the Board of Trade, and I am extremely suspicious that the Prime Minister may be moving his ground again from what he said as recently as the middle of last November. We shall watch this carefully.
We have seen the reactions of the C.E.G.B. to the Coal Board's offer. What about the steel industry and other large users of electricity? What about chemical manufacturers? This is a very much wider issue than one particular contract which has been reported in the Press. If this comes about on the lines that we have heard, it will lead to a great upheaval in the whole fuel pricing structure, and we should want to debate a new version of the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper.
One reason for the Supplementary Estimate is the very strong competitive position of oil in comparison with coal. Members will be aware that it was reported only at the end of last week that Alcan would have been very interested in oil as a fuel for the power station but was deterred by the current tax on fuel oil. I put a Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer asking to what extent devaluation had caused the Government to modify their proposals in the Fuel Policy White Paper for the continuance of the fuel oil tax. I got an uninformative Answer, saying that this, like all taxes, was coming under review before the forthcoming Budget.
The Minister of Power was a little more forthcoming on this last week, when, replying to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire), he said:
Devaluation increases the schedule price of fuel oil by 0·75d. per gallon…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 77.]
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Ministry would not reconsider this whole question of the fuel oil tax from the point of view of industrial users. Industry has had very little for which to thank this Government in the past year or two. Would they not now offer some crumb of comfort to industry by recommending the Chancellor at least to halve the fuel oil tax, if not abolish it?
In coming to a decision about the smelter, I hope that the Minister will be very wary of the buccaneering of the


Chairman of the Coal Board and the blandishments of the mining lobby. Let Lim stick to his White Paper principle of very limited assistance to the coal industry. Let him remember the interests of industry generally and, above all, let him avoid any additional burdens on the taxpayer.

1.19 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Once again those hon. Members interested in power and fuel matters find themselves on the night shift. I hope that soon we shall have an opportunity of debating the revised White Piper on fuel in the broad light of day. I was grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his interjection to the effect that the White Paper had been withdrawn, which presumably means that it will be Nought forward soon, for proper debate, at a proper time of day ——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order the hon. Gentleman is out of order in referring to the White Paper.

Mr. Ridley: I apologise, and I will not touch on the subject again.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has performed a valuable service in raising this subject tonight. I could not go entirely with him when he said—I took down his words: "No one should complain about import substitution." We have to take into account our E.F.T.A. partners, and we must consider whether we are breaking any of the international trading rules that we have undertaken to observe. That is one consideration that has been raised tonight.
We have to decide whether it is economical for us to produce at home those things that we have hitherto imported. I have not the least doubt that one could quite easily grow coconuts on St. Kilda's, but I am sure that it would be far from economic to do so. On the figures produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn)—his rather startling comparison of,he 0·2d. cost of fuel in Canada and Norway as against the 1·28d., wholesale, in This country—one is entirely justified in asking, before these very large sums of money are committed, whether smelting is an economic proposition here. That is why hon. Members on both sides have asked for a lot of information. I hope

that the Parliamentary Secretary will give us that information now, because what my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) has called "non-answers" will not be accepted if the House is to pass this Supplementary Estimate with an easy conscience.
The first and most important question is: is the price which the Coal Board has tendered one which contains a subsidy, or is it not? One of the main purposes of the debate is to find out what the price is. One cannot decide the question without having the knowledge of what the contract which the Board has offered is. The rumour is that the Board offered 3¼d. for the coal for the Seaton Carew power station. The Sunday Times has reported that Mr. Elton, the managing director of Alcan, has said that the delivered price of the coal will be rather higher than the 3d. a therm that has been generally reported. That probably means that it is about 3¼d. a therm. Since that figure has not been denied anywhere, I suppose we must accept that it is in the region of 3¼d.
The average price of coal is about 5d. a therm, so there is clearly a case to answer. As the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks) said, we cannot accept enormous discrimination in a coal price unless it is open policy we can all understand, and is based on some rationale, like development areas or development industries—it is not for me to suggest what it should be, but it should be some rational structure that we can understand.
The question which the Central Electricity Generating Board and the Steel Corporation are asking cannot go unanswered, namely, if the smelting industry is to receive this cheap coal, are they to receive it, too? The steel industry's case is particularly strong, because that industry is a competitor with the aluminium industry in the finished product. If its competitors in aluminium are to get cheap fuel supplies, steel has every right to demand the same treatment.
I have studied the latest White Paper on the nationalised industries for any help that it may give us on pricing policy. It says:
… pricing policies should be devised with reference to the costs of the particular eoads and services provided.


That is an unexceptionable statement, but we want to know what its relationship to the Coal Board is. If we are to sell coal from the low-cost pits—the pits producing at 3d. or 4d. a therm—the present high-cost pits are bound to need to be subsidised from somewhere else. If there is not a profit on low cost pits, that subsidy will have to come by means of the deficit in the Coal Board accounts which will have to be made up by this House. If we have to take this buccaneering which we suspect is taking place, we would like to know on whose authority it is being done and how much public money is to be committed in so doing.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: Is there not another possibility, that the Generating Board and the South of Scotland Electricity Board will be overcharged for their coal?

Mr. Ridley: That is most certainly a possibility, and it could apply to the steel industry, a major competitor. We must have answers to these questions.
The Prime Minister gave a pledge, as my hon. Friends the Members for Honiton and Sheffield, Hallam have said. On 14th November, he said:
The arrangements now being discussed between interested companies and the generating boards would neither involve an Exchequer subvention nor an increase in the cost of electricity to other users, Sir."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 737, c. 213.]
That is the reply to the hon. Member for Bristol, Central. There has been this pledge, that no taxpayers' money will be used, and that there will be no increase in the price of electricity over what it would otherwise have been. Does this mean that if a deficit is finally presented to this House in the Coal Board accounts it will be an Exchequer subvention even though it occurs 15 to 20 years from now? This contract is supposed to last 25 years. We trust implicitly every word and pledge the Prime Minister has uttered, and we would like to know that this applies to the future as well as the present.
It is difficult to see if this is the case. Is it not true that Alcan would provide its own power station for the Invergordon smelter? If this is true, it will presumably attract the 45 per cent. in-

vestment grant, whereas if the North of Scotland Board were to build it it would attract no investment grant because nationalised industries do not get the grants. This would give a 45 per cent. advantage to privately-owned stations, and it is a departure in electricity policy. It is an odd one if it is so, and we have to think of the coverage if the Alcan power station were shut for maintenance. Presumably supplies would have to come from the North of Scotland Board. Although I would not complain about this departure of providing electricity from private industry with this advantage, it is an odd way to bring it about.
We have heard so much about the unity of the grid and how impossible it is to cut the grid up and have power stations owned by major users, that it is a little difficult to see why the much vaunted advantages of the unified grid can so easily be dropped because 45 per cent. investment grant is attracted by this power station. I am sure this was not in the mind of the Government when they set up the 45 per cent. investment grants. It is an anomaly which appears to have arisen. I make no comment, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary would like to say how he intends to take it from here. My hon. Friends have touched on this point and the apparent distortion which follows from having a discriminatory investment grant which does not apply right across the board, but only to private industry of this sort.
The result of this policy will be more and more to lead to denationalisation of electricity supply by encouraging other large consumers of electricity all over the country to apply for the 45 per cent. grant if they are in development areas. or the 25 per cent. grant if they are not. to get what must be cheaper power. despite the fact that they will lose the advantages of the economies of scale under the unified grid. This is no time to discuss this policy, but it should be drawn to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The question in this probing debate is not so much about whether there should be a smelter in Scotland, but about whether the smelters, wherever they may be built, should be based on coal-fired


power stations or on nuclear-fired power stations. The actual number of jobs in the Invergordon smelter is in the region of 900 and, wherever the fuel for the power station comes from, it is unlikely that this will result in further jobs in Scotland itself.
It has been said, "Why not use Scottish coal? Why not supply the new smelter with coal from the Fife coalfield?" I also would ask "Why not?" If we are to depart from the economics which we have hitherto known for a unified Coal Board to the extent that certain customers can be singled out with greater preferential offers, it does not matter a fig whether the coal comes from Kent, from the North-East Coast or from Fife. All the Coal Board has done is to make al offer of 500,000 tons a year for 25 years to supply coal to a particular part of Scotland. If that offer were accepted, it would be cheaper for the Coal Board to take coal from the Fife coalfield because transport costs would be less. If they were to sink money in a brand-new pit in Fife it might be a better investment than to sink money in a pit in Durham.
But this is not a matter for us. It does not matter to hon. Members where this coal comes from. The fact that certain coal costs a certain amount to mine is not connected with the price at which it is to be sold. We know that some coal is to be sold at 3¼d. a therm, whereas other coal is going to cost 5d. or 7d. a therm.
The whole economics of the offer are upside down. Once one departs from uniform prices and the reality of the economic situation which faces the Coal Board, then the multiplication of difficulties and the confusions which result will become more than any of us in this House can master.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will throw some light on this matter. I agree that it is wrong for us to press for the disclosure of commercial secrets or to interfere in the internal affairs of the Coal Board, but on this occasion there is a strong suspicion that a tender has been made which will result in a charge on public funds being made at some stage in the future. We may be wrong, and surely the best way to clear up the matter is to make public the offer the Coal Board have made so that we can get to the bottom of the matter. I

hope that this discussion will yield some information which will be of real value to those whose best interests are the Scottish coalfields and other coalfields in the country.

1.35 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): A great number of questions have been raised this evening, and, if I attempted to reply to them all, we should be here a long time, quite apart from the fact that, if I sought to answer them, on at least 50 per cent. I should be ruled out of order, because they should be directed to other Departments which have a direct concern with the points raised in them. However, I will deal with as many of them as are relevant to the debate and to my Department.
It is fair to say that there has been no commercial contract between a nationalised industry and a private concern which has excited so much interest and comment as the current negotiations between the N.C.B. and Alcan. The precise terms of the Board's offer of supplies have been the subject of much speculation, and there have been requests to which I do not intend to accede to make them public. They are commercial negotiations covering matters which it is not normally expected to reveal in public. It is not just a matter of a nationalised industry, because a large private concern is involved. I shall not depart from normal practice, although, surprisingly, many hon. Members opposite have insisted that the details of these private negotiations should be stated in public.
That is not to say that I shall not deal with a number of the questions raised. However, on that score, I cannot differ from the answer given by my right hon. Friend on an earlier occasion. These are commercial negotiations, and to make them public might prejudice other negotiations of a similar kind.

Mr. Palmer: It is a matter of public interest when the Generating Board and the Scottish Electricity Boards are obliged to publish full details of their commercial transactions.

Mr. Freeson: I have stated the position, and I am in no different position from that of my right hon. Friend on the matter.
The main lines of the offer are well enough understood. There will be an initial annual supply of half a million tons of coal, which will rise to one million tons subsequently. The contract will be for a period of 25 years, subject to various conditions. The price at which the coal is offered is a very low one, and necessarily so if coal is to compete and receive serious consideration by Alcan.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has got himself into some difficulty. There is no other nationalised industry product whose price is not available and published, so that everyone can know what it is. I have in mind such matters as the price of steel and gas, rail fares and freight rates, air fares, and so on. How does it come about that we have this departure in public industry policy that some prices can be kept secret? It is a completely new policy. How is it justified?

Mr. Freeson: It is not new policy. It would be if the House of Commons debated the details of commercial contracts which are subject to negotiation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would accept that this is a principle which should not be varied. It is not correct to say that details of contracts and prices in all nationalised industries are published. There have been exceptions in the past, and I am sure that there will he again.
I want to make it clear that I do not intend to reveal the details of commercial negotiations which have been going on between Alcan and the N.C.B.

Mr. Emery: I take the hon. Gentleman's point completely. Whether we disagree with him, we understand what he says. However, would he publish the prices when the contract was negotiated? One can understand the argument that it is difficult to reveal prices while a contract is in the process of negotiation, but, if agreement was reached, would the prices and other aspects of the agreement be made public?

Mr. Freeson: No. I am not here to state whether a contract of that kind will be published in detail. Hon. Members opposite know very well that it is not the normal practice on the floor of

the House. I will make it clear again. I do not intend to reveal the details of commercial negotiations. The price which has been put forward by the National Coal Board is a very low one. That is as far as I can go on that point.
Let us get to the main point which arose from this, namely, the question whether there would be a subsidy. Before doing so, I should make it clear that there is no connection between the Alcan and the National Coal Board negotiations and the Supplementary Estimate of £5 million which has been quoted several times as if it were part of what might become some kind of subsidy in the Alcan—National Coal Board negotiations should that project be selected as being the right one to adopt. The Supplementary Estimate has nothing to do with the Alcan negotiations. The supplies to Alcan are unlikely to begin until 1971, were the project to be adopted. The £45 million, of which the £5 million odd is a part to be provided under the Coal Industry Act, would end in March, 1971. The small figure in the year's Supplementary Estimates has nothing to do with the Alcan project.

Mr. Brooks: When my hon. Friend referred to the first stage in the Alcan coal requirement happening in 1971, surely it would be true to say that if the Alcan—N.C.B. deal goes through now, this will affect the closure or otherwise of a particular pit or pits in one part of the country and that decision will certainly affect the costs of the N.C.B. before the end of the 1960s.

Mr. Freeson: Neither I nor my right hon. Friend is in a position to state whether this will be the result. The kind of subsidy arrangements which were put forward in the course of the Coal Industry Act relate to the transitional period during which the coal industry will be contracting and reshaping itself with the objective of becoming a fully economic and viable industry in the early or middle 1970s. Concerning any long-term contract in terms of 25 years, or whatever point in time it were to start, the figure speaks for itself. One is going well beyond the period with which the Supplementary Estimate is concerned. To suggest that there is any connection between the Alcan scheme and this is stretching the debate beyond what my


hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) initiated earlier.
On the point about whether any breach of the pledge concerning subsidy is involved here, I want to make it clear that there is no question of a subsidy involved. I think that this answers a particular question from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery), and a number of other hon. Members who raised the point. As I have said, if this project were to be selected, the period of time involved would see the coal industry well on the road to paying its way. If, in 25 years, the industry is not able to reshape and get itself into the position of being fully viable, there will be no point to the discussions that we have been having in the House, and the consideration that we in the Department have been giving to this matter, over the past few months.
The issue of investment grants was raised. Hon. Members seem to think that it these are paid they might be another form of hidden or open subsidy. The issue of investment grants is not for my Department. It is not, as the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury implied—if he did not say it—a question to be dealt with on the score of this one project. There is a general policy involved, and it is a matter for the President of the Board of Trade, not the Minister of Power.
Arising from the question of subsidy, or non-subsidy, or investment grant, I was asked whether there would be an escalation in price over this long period. The general answer is that if one takes account of the fact that the industry will become more viable and more cost-conscious—I chink that this is the common phrase—if there is any change, or a provision in the contract to allow for a change of price, it will not be an issue of escalation, but of taking the benefit of an improved, more efficient, and modern industry which is holding and containing its costs.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Honiton is smiling, because this is the kind of issue, and not one like Alcan, that we have been discussing on other aspects, for several months. The whole object of the exercise is to enable the industry to re-shape itself and become thoroughly modern and viable. It is not

a matter for laughter, but a serious one for the industry.

Mr. Emery: It is a matter for laughter when we are discussing a commercial undertaking and the Minister, having said that we would all welcome a proper commercial cost method of producing coal, then says that over 25 years there will not be inflation which will be reflected in the cost of coal, and the N.C.B. should not be protected by proper escalation. The Minister shows he does not understand the commercial aspects of pricing in the nationalised industries.

Mr. Freeson: I take due notice of my incapacity to judge matters, but if the hon. Gentleman had contained himself he would have heard me say that the negotiations will take account of any inflationary process. I think that this will be accepted in any kind of contract on that kind of scale. It was not necessary for the hon. Gentleman to get so excited or indignant about it, either just now or earlier.
I return to the issue of the low price, because several hon. Members have asked whether the N.C.B. should even have gone in for this. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), it is not true to say that the Government have changed their mind. The position, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West said earlier, is that virtually an undertaking was given at the beginning of October—it was publicly announced in a speech, and in a Press release—to the effect that it was open to the N.C.B. to start negotiations if it had the opportunity to do so. This is what the industry has done. There has been no change of mind.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I must ask the Minister to address the Chair.

Mr. Freeson: Like other projects which come before the Government for their consideration, this will be considered, and since October it has been open to the N.C.B. to put forward a project.

Mr. Brooks: I was referring to an article in The Times of 26th January which said:
it was not until December 15 that Alcan received a reply from the Government saying that it would consider a coal proposal.

Mr. Freeson: I am not able to comment on what might have appeared in The Times. I do not know why there should be any argument about this. There was a Government statement in October that it was open to the N.C.B. to put forward its proposals, and they would be considered. That is what has happened.
Among the more solid and tangible reasons for the low pricing involved in these negotiations we should take account of the changes in productivity and costs which the industry should expect over the years. The negotiations have taken account of the scope of economies in transport arising from the use of large vessels and newer methods of traffic flow, and of the advantages of securing a market. The prospect of securing a longterm contract is attractive to most business concerns, and especially to a coal industry which has been losing markets for years now. Finally, negotiations have taken account of the stock position, in Scotland and elsewhere.
Reference was made, in connection with sources of supply, to the possibility of Scottish coal, and the Michael colliery was referred to as a possible source if the project should go ahead. This is a matter for the N.C.B. I should make it clear—and I say this in no unkind spirit —that it is for the Board to decide whether it is a question of the general supply of coal or of keeping open or reopening a certain colliery. We have not received a specific request from the N.C.B. in respect of the Michael colliery. It is a matter for the Board to decide. There are many factors which will influence the Board's decision where to draw its coal should the scheme go ahead.
The fuel policy implications of the industry's bid for business can be considered at two levels. Taking first coal industry policy, it has been represented quite forcibly in the Press that the proposed contract raises the question of undue preference in the Board's pricing policy. It is well to remember the wording of the nationalisation Act, namely, that the National Coal Board is
charged with the duty of making supplies of coal available … at such prices as may seem to them best calculated to further public interest in all respects, including the avoidance of any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage".
That is the basis upon which it operates, and I hope that hon. Members will agree

that negotiations have proceeded on that basis.
It may be that further consideration should be given to the question whether a Board or a Government should determine the national interest, and generally to the criteria by which preferential tariffs are fixed in the public industries. I do not want to enter into controversy tonight; it is not particularly relevant. I do not want to dodge it. It is a real issue, which inevitably, as the industry changes and development area policies proceed and industrial changes take place, will become more and more an issue to be considered. I do not want to enter into controversy whether these negotiations involve undue preference, or about the general issue of the Board's pricing policies—a matter that has been touched upon by several hon. Members.
Whatever view may finally be taken on the merits of the offer which has been the subject of discussion, the Board should have commercial freedom in its negotiations for business in the private sector. Were it to be deprived of this right, and if coal were sold on a "take it-or-leave-it" basis at a fixed price—as some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewksbury have suggested—the Board would be failing in its duty to make the best use of the assets vested in it in the most difficult period that lies ahead.
Finally, a word on national fuel policy. This bid and Alcan's statement that coal is preferred to nuclear power for this particular project have no bearing on the broad judgment set out in the White Paper on Fuel Policy. I would remind the House that this Paper assumed that the coal industry would achieve major increases in productivity and that if it fails to do so the demand for coal will not be as high as postulated in the White Paper. I must also make clear that this is not quite the straight confrontation between coal and nuclear power that may appear at first sight, and as was indicated, I think, by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington.
The Scottish Electricity Board's quotation for supplies was not based on nuclear stations in the first years of a smelter, and even in the later years it


assumed a modest element of conventional stand-by supplies. In addition the company has made clear to my right hon. Friend that a power station on the site has managerial and operational advantages for the enterprise as a whole which it considered important. 'There are more factors than just a confrontation between coal and nuclear power.
It has to be borne in mind that the price quoted by the Board is one which reflects the rather special circumstances attaching to the envisaged sale. It is because the price is exceptionally low that such criticisms have been made of the Board's offer. But the fact that the price is exceptionally low is not in itself something to be criticised.
It is cow the task of the Government, and I should make this clear, to consider the various proposals and all that they imply, which have been made to construct aluminium smelters, and to reach judgments which reflect a full assessment of the national interest. The issues underlying the decision are important and the implications of the various points of view which have been expressed during the public debate on the coal offer are probably of greater significance than the amount of coal in issue, and I hope hon. Members will accept that I have accepted that in the course of my remarks.

Orders of the Day — MILITARY STORES AND EQUIPMENT, ADEN (DISPOSAL)

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: At this late hour I seek to raise the question of the disposal of military stores and equipment in Aden before and after out evacuation. I must apologise to the Minister for keeping him from his bed tonight, but if, as some commentators say, he is about to become the Government Chief Whip, I dare say he will give up sleep altogether, so that this may certainly be good training for him. In any case, there is an element of poetic justice in this, for if the replies to some of my Questions in recent weeks had been more informative, I doubt whether I would have found it necessary to seek this brief debate.
We are looking tonight at Supplementary Estimates for the Army of some £18 million, and I think it is plain that

the buildings and equipment left by the Army amount to considerably more than £18 million. A few days after our forces had left Aden at the end of November, I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what equipment was handed over to the army of the Republic of South Yemen on the evacuation of Aden. On 13th December I received a Written Answer which said
Certain items of equipment were included with installations handed over as 'going concerns' as reported in Command 3442. These were handed over without charge. In addition other items were handed over on repayment to the Southern Yemen authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1967; Vol. 741, c. 135.]
The Treasury Minute, of which I have a copy, is Command 3442 and costs 6d., which is remarkably poor value. Except for the announcement that the buildings handed over are valued at £24·6 million, the only information which it gives is this:
In addition, there are some items of movable equipment and stores which should be handed over with the buildings in order to permit them to continue as going concerns. The exact value of these items is not known as present, but it is unlikely to exceed £1 million.
That statement is misleading. Following the Answer to my original Question, I put down further Questions to the Minister and, on the day that the House rose for the Christmas Recess, I received another reply which was very vague. It said that the information which I had sought about the amount of ammunition, vehicles, weapons and so on which had been handed over was not readily available, adding that it would be some time before the records were complete, but the Minister would write to me.
It has been said that, above and beyond the buildings estimated to be worth £24·6 million, stores worth £10 million were left behind as a good will gesture to the new Government of the People's Republic of Southern Yemen. I certainly do not advocate tearing out the telephones from Ministerial offices, as the French are supposed to have done when they left Guinea, but one wonders whether the Republic appreciates our gesture or thinks that we are soft in the head.
Of course, some items must be left behind. It might have been a fighting withdrawal, and our troops had to have operational equipment at hand until the.


very moment of evacuation, and I would not argue that the Land Rovers of the last battalion should be flown out with the men or that they should take their ammunition, but it looks as if substantial quantities of supplies were unnecessarily left behind.
I note from the Estimate, for example, that we spent an extra £700,000 on ammunition and shipped out of Aden 7,000 tons of ammunition, but we seem to have handed over free to the Republican Army about 44 million rounds of small arms ammunition, along with mortar ammunition and artillery shells. I hope that the Minister can tell us with some precision how much ammunition was handed over.
Then there is the question of radar and signals equipment. I understand that we said, quite properly, that we would leave behind radar equipment at the civilian airport to enable Aden to have a functioning international civil airport. But what other radar and R.A.F. signals equipment have we left behind? I am told that Russian aircraft have already been refuelled at Khormakser. It would be ironic if this ex-R.A.F. station became the first Russian base protected by British radar.
I appreciate that not all the vehicles could be shipped out, but the Minister will appreciate that few things provoke more gnashing and grinding of teeth than stories about well-maintained Land Rovers being sold locally for £50. How many vehicles did we leave behind? I understand that two British businessmen were willing to purchase all the abandoned vehicles for £150,000 but were unable to get delivery of a substantial number of them. Did we make any agreements with surplus property dealers either in this country or locally in Aden?
Along the coast from Aden our friend the Sultan of Muscat and Oman is at present having to expand his forces because of the deteriorating security position in the area, and also because of the developing oil wealth of his country. Did we sell or give him any of the vehicles or other items of equipment which we left behind? I appreciate that, in the circumstances which arose during the last hectic days of our headlong withdrawal, not everything could be accounted for, but the evacuation of British families was

completed many months before we left Aden proper. The cost of rehousing them is also reflected in the substantial extra sums shown in the Estimates for purchases of buildings. I am told that kitchen units, refrigerators, cutlery, glass and china worth £1½ million was left behind. Evidently furniture has been left in some 3,000 married quarters, although some displaced Army families have unfortunately had to live in discomfort in this country in recent months.
It has also been estimated that £500,000 worth of air conditioning units have been abandoned. Surely, in the months which elapsed between the departure of the British families and the final evacuation, much more of this valuable domestic equipment could and should have been removed. About two months have elapsed since the evacuation, and I regret that, so far, the Government have not been able to give any meaningful reply to the Questions I have tabled. The Government's only boast in the defence field is that they got the sums right, although they do not seem, in this instance, to be able to produce any sums at all, although I can understand their reluctance to provide information at a time when the sale of arms anywhere to anyone is such a sensitive subject.
It is only seven months since the ghastly massacre of British soldiers in Crater. Members of the present People's Government of Southern Yemen rejoice in their individual terrorist records. I should not be entirely surprised if some of the equipment we left behind was used against our friends in Muscat and the Gulf States. I wonder if some of those responsible for implementing our disposal policy in Aden will receive even greater recognition than a mention in despatches. Possibly such recognition would be justified, but meanwhile I am certain that the British taxpayer is entitled to know what was done with the equipment he paid for in far greater detail than we have been told so far.

2.11 a.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: Even at this late hour my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) has rendered a public service in raising this very important issue. The whole of the withdrawal from Aden and the hasty disposal of stores, equipment and other materials is almost a classic


example of waste masquerading in the guise of economy. It is also a classic example in a much wider sense of how not to de-colonise.
Before asking any further questions about the actual details of disposal of stores, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute, in which I am sure the Minister will join, to the courage, discipline, restraint and efficiency of the British troops who conducted themselves with almost incredible efficiency under the most trying circumstances and under the almost impossible orders of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on 6th December about the value of all these stores. I received a reply in very similar terms to that received by my hon. Friend, that the total sum of the assets transferred amounted to £24·6 million. That seemed a very low figure.
When I was in Aden in April, the value of installations and buildings in Little Aden alone amounted to £16 million. It included barracks, married quarters, recreational facilities and other buildings, many of which were not yet completed. They were in process of completion, and so was air-conditioning plant. There was a huge generating plant costing nearly £1 million which had not been completed. It was being dismantled bit by bit in the name of economy and going bit by bit to Bahrain. I suppose that it has been dismantled again because there has been another plan. This is all in the name of economy. It seems very strange. Apart from the accommodation and buildings in Little Aden, there was all material on what one can call the mainland. Is the Minister to tell the House that that was worth only £8 million?
There was the whole of the equipment in the docks at Steamer Point; there was the whole of the headquarters of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army; there was the whole of Government House, which was much bigger than anyone would want as an embassy, with all the offices attached to it; there was the airfield, as my hon. Friend said, with radar and everything else. Suppose Ell that had been nationalised, so to speak, by some foreign Government on a takeover bid. I find it very difficult to believe that any British Government

would have put in a counter-claim for a value as low as £24 million.
I must say one word about the airfield, which is, perhaps, the most important of all, because it had some very sophisticated equipment. I do not know what was left. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows what was left. If one gets out in such a hurry it is very difficult to know what is left. All I am certain about is that we left a vacuum and I am equally certain that the vacuum will not remain a vacuum. All those facilities will not be used by the People's Republic of South Yemen. Somebody else will use them. I think my hon. Friend is right. I suspect that Soviet planes have already refuelled on that airfield. Perhaps that may shock even the hon. Gentleman the Minister, in his knowledge of strategy and long-term thinking for the whole of Middle East defence.
In the Answer to my Parliamentary Question on 6th December there was one absolutely splendid sentence. I must read it to the hon. Gentleman:
Other moveable equipment and stores not required for use elsewhere or not economically worth transporting were sold, prior to withdrawal, to the Federal authorities, to other Governments, or on the open market in accordance with normal Services disposals procedures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967: Vol. 755, c. 315.]
To the Federal authorities? There were not any, because the Federal Government were not in being. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had sabotaged any chance of a federal Government by negotiating with the terrorists. So it was not to the Federal authorities. One cannot sell stores to a future Government when that future Government are not in being. When we handed over there was no Government. So it was not to the Federal authorities. So to whom did they hand over?
Secondly, it says "other Governments." To what other Governments? The Sultan of Muscat? Sheiks farther up the Gulf? To Egypt? To the Yemen? To whom? Well, the hon. Gentleman laughs. I am asking him to what other Governments.
When it comes to
on the open market in accordance with normal Services disposals
we all know what that means. Anybody who has been to the Middle East


knows what that means. People who have not been to the Middle East know what that means. I should think the hon. Gentleman knows what that means: the biggest black market free-for-all scramble there ever has been. That is what that means.
I put another Question on the same day and got a Written Answer. I was anxious to know what the cost of the build-up would be in Bahrain. There was all this stuff being moved, under the great plan, from Aden, from which we were withdrawing, to Bahrain, which we were to build up. Everybody was saying, "Do not worry about going out of Aden. That's all right. We are going to Bahrain." I had the feeling that to switch from one base to another might be a bit expensive. I have had several hunches, but it will now be even more expensive than I then thought. What about all that equipment?
What about the air-conditioned houses at Sharjah? Are they being demolished? They are only half-built now. What about all the accommodation in Bahrain? Is that being stopped now and nothing further done? If it is to be completed it will be very expensive, as we are getting out by 1971. If it is not to be completed, where will the troops be accommodated? It must be one way or the other.
In my Question I asked what the cost would be of transferring from Aden to Bahrain in 1967. The Answer was that it was very small in foreign exchange. The Minister said:
The forecast foreign exchange cost of our forces in Bahrain including works costs in the current financial year is about £7 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 316.]
I asked for that figure to be compared with the figure for 1955–56, which I chose fairly arbitrarily. The Answer the Department gave was that no records of such expenditure were kept in 1955–56. But there was a Senior Naval Officer in the Persian Gulf, if my recollection is correct, and he was based on Bahrain and had a staff. I believe that there were also some troops there.
We want to know, even at this late hour, what the balance sheet tots up to. The taxpayer foots the bill, and it is high time to stop this nonsense by which

the move from Aden to Bahrain and from Bahrain to nowhere is all done in the name of economy. I have a shrewd suspicion that for its size it will turn out to be about the most expensive economy the Government have ever performed.

2.22 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): I was interested in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), and I assure him before going any further that the sums of money which have been talked about tonight, and even in the newspapers, are but the tiniest possible fraction of the tens of millions of pounds-worth of arms which were left in the Suez Canal base in 1956 and which have been used against us all over the Middle East ever since. Perhaps we can just leave the matter at that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be objectionable to the present Government, there is a great deal one could remind him about concerning the amounts of money lost on equipment alone, apart from the airfields used by Russian aircraft in the past 10 years.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: If I were the hon. Gentleman I should not use that argument. If I recollect correctly—and I was in the area at the time—it was the Labour Party that was most vocal in suggesting to us when we were in power that we should evacuate the Suez base, which it had helped build up.

Mr. Reynolds: I am not the hon. Gentleman and he is not me. He is criticising us over sums of money which are very small compared with what was deliberately left behind by the Administration which he supported in 1956, and which has been used against us ever since, as well as aerodromes used by Russian aircraft.
We are dealing with what happened to equipment and stores in Aden in 1967 before our withdrawal, and what has happened to them since. Some has gone to Sharjah and Bahrain. The hon. Gentleman asked about the build-up there. That was not the subject of the debate, which is on the much narrower ground that I was given notice of—the disposal of stores and equipment. But I do not deny that buildings are still being completed in Sharjah and Bahrain. We


are still in the process of moving out as part of our redeployment from Aden, and it was recently announced by the Government that we shall leave the Gulf in about 1970–71. But that is some time away, and we shall have to spend a bit more money there putting in facilities needed in that climate for the troops in the next two or three years. We could not leave them there without some facilities still to be provided for the hot weather.
The main point of the debate is the question of what happened to the stores and other equipment in Aden when we left that area.
It was not just a question of getting stores and equipment out. There was the problem during 1967 of moving some 20,000 Servicemen and their families out t the same time. I regret that I still cannot give full information on the problem. Even the task of bringing out all the paper connected with the movement of stores was quite a job and some of it is still in Bahrein and being worked on there, while part of it is already in London. Again I cannot give complete information on this yet but I can give more than it has been possible to supply so far.
Khormakser is a civil airport and is not within my responsibility. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down Questions about it and we may be able to provide some information. Mostly during the latter stages of the run-down, some 48,539 tons of stores were brought out by ship during 1967 to the United Kingdom from Aden, while 68,009 tons were taken elsewhere, much of it to the Gulf. Aircraft moved 2,759 tons to the United Kingdom and 12,803 tons elsewhere, including the Gulf.
The total tonnage of equipment moved out of Aden during the withdrawal amounted to 132,110. Much of it came to the United Kingdom, much went to the Gulf and some elsewhere. I can give some breakdown. About 50 per cent. of the vehicles moved were Land Rovers, the remainder being heavier vehicles, some armoured. Altogether, 1,082 vehicles were taken to the Gulf during the period and 1,060 were brought here or elsewhere. This makes a total of 2,142 vehicles brought out during the withdrawal period. Again, 6,225 tons of ammunition and explosives were brought

out to here, the Gulf or elsewhere. These were very large tonnages of material and they were taken out of Aden at a time when our forces were operating under exceedingly difficult conditions.
I turn now to individual pieces of equipment. A decision had to be taken about what was to happen to these. Some £400,000 worth of furniture was taken out from Aden to the Gulf because this was found to be cheaper than obtaining new furniture in London or elsewhere and taking that to the Gulf. There was a large quantity of furniture in Aden, and an investigation into costs took place to see whether it would be worthwhile to crate it all up and ship it here or to dispose of it in some other way. After the investigation, it was decided that it would not be economic to move the bulk of it and that it should be disposed of in the area by sale of one form or another. I will come to the question of the refrigerators later. Some were fixtures in the flats.
We took what we wanted to the Gulf. Some 20 per cent. of it was damaged on the way and is now being repaired. That is one of the problems in shifting bulky things liable to breakage. To do the job properly, one would have to package, and that would be very expensive. We took what we wanted and disposed of the balance locally.
We made disposals to the South Arabian Government and other Governments in the area but as it is not the practice to give details of arms sales to other Governments in the normal commercial pattern, I cannot tell the House who these other Governments were. But can give certain information about what was sold to the South Arabian Government and other Governments, mainly in that area. To the South Arabian Government, we sold nearly £1,200,000 worth of goods from stores in Aden. Some £65,000 worth of vehicles, £8,000 worth of arms. £806,000 worth of ammunition of all kinds and £316,000 worth of various technical and general stores were also sold.
A very large part of this will be met by transfer to the Ministry of Defence, because it formed part of the arms aid programme announced in this House. Money will be reimbursed to the Ministry of Defence's Vote from the Votes of other Departments. When one comes to sales


to other Governments these totalled in the period £96,000, including £6,800 on vehicles, £32,000 on arms, £4,000 on ammunition and £53,000 worth of general technical stores of one kind or another. There is the full figure, but I cannot give details of which Governments actually purchased the equipment.
Then there were a number of local disposal sales. We disposed, either by tender or private treaty, of £283,581 worth of equipment, including the contract. The balance was sold to a local contractor who was responsible for taking it away afterwards. We then sold some material to other Governments amounting to £13,000 and we sold a certain amount, mainly bedding and light furniture and kitchen equipment, to the Servicemen who were living in married quarters. They were given the option of buying some of the stuff that we did not want to take elsewhere and bringing it home with them to the United Kingdom. There were difficulties about transport, as each Serviceman has a ration on the load that he can take with him by way of heavy baggage or on the aircraft.
Anything purchased in this way had to be brought back to the United Kingdom either in the normal free allowance or paid for at the proper rate. There was only a limited market and we sold £18,642 worth of goods, mainly bed linen and kitchen equipment to Service families, who took the stuff with them when they moved out of their married quarters on their way home. We sold £30,647 worth of goods to the landlords of hirings when we gave up the hirings. This is where the refrigerators mentioned by the hon. Gentleman come in. Refrigerators actually fixed in the flats when we handed over the flats to the landlords were in many cases bought. A number of other fittings and furniture in the hirings was also bought.
This covers the bulk of the sales other than to local Governments there. The hon. Member mentioned property handed over, and the Treasury Minute in the White Paper giving details of it. We discussed the position in 1966 with the local Government there and got agreement on which assets we would be handing over to them. They were mainly buildings of all kinds with fixtures such as air-conditioning, kitchen equipment.

boilers and other things of that nature, which will make it possible to use the buildings for the purpose for which they were designed.
We realise that the local Government have no assets with which it would be able to pay for this particular property, so it was agreed to give them to the local Government, free of charge, and the value comes to £24·6 million. This is what is described as depreciated present day replacement cost, not the cost necessarily, but the amount that it has cost us over a period of years to provide accommodation and the facilities to which the hon. Gentleman referred in Little Aden, and what he called the mainland.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: The hon. Gentleman speaks of the local Government. Is that what is in the Parliamentary Answer to my Question. Does he mean the Federal Government. If it is said that we can give it to local Government, then obviously do not sell it Is it given a notional value?

Mr. Reynolds: These assets were given to the local Government. When the discussions started it was the Government of the Federation of South Arabia. When we came out it was the Government which was formed only a matter of ten days before we left which took these assets from us. They were given to the local Government. The Government changed from the time of the original discussions until the time of handing over. We agreed also to hand them over in as satisfactory a condition as possible, so we included in the offer, some equipment, again mainly of the bulky type, which it would be uneconomic to bring back, such as school desks, hospital beds and other accommodation from hospitals, telephone exchanges and technical and medical equipment.
As the hon. Gentleman says, Cmnd. 3442 stated that the value was unlikely to exceed £1 million. I still cannot give the actual value of the stores—it is still being worked out but it will be some where between £500,000 and £1 million. I cannot go further than to say that it will not exceed £1 million for the assets that go with the building. This arrangement reflects the peculiar circumstances of our withdrawal from Aden, and cannot be regarded, any more than can other arrangements we have entered into with


other countries, as a precedent for any future withdrawals that might take place.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the photographs that appeared in The Times and the Daily Telegraph on 23rd January, 1968. I understand that they were taken at Slave Island. In fact, the military forces in Aden have never had on Slave Island any military equipment such as that shown in the photographs. Looking at the photographs, one can only assume that the material was equipment purchased from us by various contractors and moved by them for their own purposes to Slave Island.
Painted on one lorry pictured one can see a lot number which, by the look of it, was put on in connection with the auction or whatever way the lorry was purchased. Again, one sees a large aero engine. This is a Centaurus engine, some 13 of which were disposed of in Aden in 1967 as scrap. The engines were from Beverley aircraft, which have virtually gone out of service with the R.A.F. The R.A.F. had no further use for them.
The hon. Gentleman referred to an the Sunday Telegraph on 3rd December. 1967, which spoke of some £10 million worth of stores having been left behind. I can tell the House that that figure bears no relation whatever to the facts of the situation. I am talking now of stores, not of the assets worth £24·6 million covered by the Treasury Minute. One must realise that in an area like Aden the wear and tear on vehicles is very high, and if vehicles are to be used for military purposes they must be in extremely good condition.
In Aden, in 1966, we sold as unsuitable for further military use some 700 vehicles, of which about 50 per cent. would be Landrovers, as they are much used there. During 1967 until we came out of Aden, we disposed of about 1,000 military vehicles—only 300 more than we disposed of in what could be regarded as a normal year—1966. Therefore, on the vehicle side, I do not think that anyone could claim that we left behind a lot more than the normal number of vehicles that are disposed of in any case. A number of vehicles were shipped round to the Gulf because, although they were to be disposed of, it was realised that more could be obtained for them there than in Aden.

Mr. Goodhart: If £10 million is not the right figure, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the right figure is?

Mr. Reynolds: Not at the moment. I shall in due course, but the figures I have given form the bulk of the picture. Some of the material was deliberately left behind because it had been sold to local governments, and to the Government itself in the Republic of Southern Yemen. Not many more vehicles were sold than is normal.
I might add that we left quite a lot of naval fuel behind. Unfortunately the tanks holding it were so constructed that not all the fuel could be taken from them. About 11,522 tons of naval fuel were left in the bottom of the tanks. I was told that some of it would have had to be chipped out because it had solidified. It had a value of some £60,000. No one can be blamed for leaving that fuel at the bottom of the tanks but, theoretically, it was available there and, theoretically, it was worth £60,000. We did not get a penny for it and it is still there, but I doubt if it is a great deal of good to anyone.
One has to realise the general conditions in Aden during the whole period. The troops out there, and other people working with them were being constantly harassed in what we have grown used to regarding as a typical internal security situation. They also had to make alternative plans because they did not know the actual date of withdrawal until a few weeks before; they had to assume different dates and make checks on whether the plans should be brought up to date, or altered in any way so that the political options were left to the Government in London.
We had to set up a Port Operating Unit and it had to set up records of the tonnage it managed to get through the Port of Aden. We managed to clear, in the last few days, the vast bulk of all the stores which we wanted to bring out of Aden. Vehicles were virtually driven out of Crater straight on to the airfield and sent to the Gulf with men who only one and a half hours before had been on duty in Crater and other parts of Aden. All that happened reflects great credit on the staff planning the withdrawal of technical and other stores and munitions amounting to thousands of


tons and credit on those responsible for the physical work of checking them out and getting them to the United Kingdom, to the Gulf and other parts. When the records are gathered together, we shall be able to give more information than we can now.
The figure for what we left behind in the Suez Canal has never yet been stated.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVANTS (PENSIONS)

2.43 a.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree): I am grateful to the Minister for being here to answer the important points which I wish to raise briefly on the grants in aid set out in the Supplementary Estimates to the colonies of Seychelles and St. Vincent and the larger grant to Mauritius, about to become independent. These highlight what I believe to be a major error in our aid programme, and this error has been accentuated by devaluation. The large payment to Zambia for her contingency costs is also relevant because we, at the same time, expect her to pay the pensions of our overseas Civil Servants who served this country and Zambia when it was called Northern Rhodesia. This is a completely different policy to that adopted by France, Belgium and Holland for those who served their erstwhile colonies. There are approximately 20,000 overseas service pensioners, whose position is little known in this country.
We at present expect the developing countries of the Commonwealth and our still existing Colonies to meet the basic pensions of our old colonial servants, however great they may be. All we are prepared to do is to supplement the pensions to meet the rise in the cost of living if the territories concerned have not seen fit to do so. The result is often that pensioners receive their pensions from four, five or six Governments, depending on where they were serving. This is the result of the Public Officers' Agreements usually signed at the time of independence, and no doubt to be signed shortly for Mauritius.
Many developing countries believe that these agreements were to some ex-

tent forced on them. Anyhow, the pensions appear in their budgets and not in ours and, therefore, are frequently unpopular overseas, even though Britain gives much more in aid than the cost of a pension to our own civil servants now retired and living in Britain or elsewhere.
I suggest that there are five results of this policy. First, although all were recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, it has been a matter of luck where they were called to serve as to how great their basic pension is, and also whether this has been increased or decreased as a result of the devaluation of the pound.
I hope that the Minister will confirm that some countries have uplifted their pensions payable in this country by about one-sixth because of our devaluation which has not been followed by them; namely, Zambia, Malaya, Swaziland and Brunei. Some existing Colonies such as Hong Kong have increased their pensions through only partial devaluation by, in the case of Hong Kong, 5·7 per cent., and in the case of Fiji by 8·8 per cent. rather than by one-sixth.
This means that pensioners living here or in countries which have devalued equally with Britain will benefit, but that those living in Australia, South Africa or in countries which have not devalued will receive no benefit. But there are ex-Colonies and present Colonies which have not devalued, such as those in East Africa and Singapore, which have decided to pay at the new sterling rate. This means that pensioners here will get no more than before and those in Australia, South Africa and Canada will get less.
It may be said that where pensioners now live is their own choice, though Her Majesty's Government recruited them in Australia, South Africa and Canada and in other countries which have not devalued as well as recruiting them in Britain. But where overseas civil servants serve was not their own choice; they were told where to go.
The second result of this policy is that claims for income tax vary according to where the colonial servants served. This was started by Ghana which suddenly levied seven shillings in the pound on all pensions in 1963. I am glad to say that the position in Ghana is now much better.


The problem seems to have been sorted out. But in the case of Ceylon, I am told that years may elapse before income tax over-claimed by Ceylon is repaid, and now that Ceylon has devalued by 20 per cent. and widows are paid their pensions in rupees their small pensions stiffer considerably.
There is also the case of Kenya and Uganda where pensioners are paid at the pre-devaluation rate but the tax is being deducted at the post-devaluation rate, which again will bear hardly on the small pensioner. It seems therefore that the Public Officers' Agreements are interpreted in different ways in different countries. Surely this is not satisfactory.
The third result of our policy is that for some time the pensioners get nothing at all for months on end. This happened to those who had served in the Eastern Region of Nigeria before the Federal Government took over the obligations of the East. How does the Minister expect the pensioners to live in the meantime?
The fourth result has been the request by the Government of Tanzania, a Government in which no civil servant actually served—

Mr. Speaker: Could the hon. Member keep within the Estimate under discussion?

Mr. Tilney: I understand, Mr. Speaker, bat I am worried lest in the Public Service Agreement with Mauritius the Minister will copy exactly what has happened in the case of Tanganyika. It is a most remarkable result which must be avoided at all costs in the case of Mauritius.
The Public Officers' Agreement between the United Kingdom and Tanganyika, Command 1813, is a very cryptic document. Section 5(iv) reads:
Pensions payable outside Tanganyika after the appointed day shall be paid in sterling and shall be calculated at the official rate of exchange prevailing on the appointed day between the pound sterling and the currency in use in Tanganyika, notwithstanding any variation in that rate".
Section 6, on options, says:
For the purposes of this Agreement, in so far as the law, regulations or administrative directions applicable to the grant of a pension or to other conditions of service depends on the option of the person to or in respect of whom the pension is granted or is to be

granted, or of the officer to whom the conditions of service apply, the law, regulations or administrative directions for which such person or officer opts shall be taken to be more favourable to him than any other law, regulation or administrative direction for which he might have opted.
In the case of Mauritius, I hope that the Minister's ideas will be made clearer, because it is a ridiculous situation. If a pensioner opts to have his pension paid in Tanzania with the proceeds transferred to Britain, he will benefit by 16 per cent., whereas if it is paid in Britain through the Crown Agents, he gets no benefit, even though Tanzania has not devalued.
The fifth and final result is the great uncertainty for the future of pensions felt by all the pensioners. I cannot believe that that is what the Minister wants. Why not remove hostility overseas, give security to the pensioners and. indirectly. produce some Income Tax here rather than overseas by taking over all basic pensions? I am told that the cost of overseas pensions in February 1964 was about £10½ million for about 22,000 pensioners —

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect. the hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Estimate.

Mr. Tilney: Mr. Speaker, this could be a book-keeping entry. I do not want any more money spent. However, it could be spent more wisely if this was done. I am told that the cost of the basic pensions paid through the Crown Agents was only £6 million in 1964. That must be a minute percentage of the great expenditure on aid as a whole, and it would be a declining commitment. Why not set the cost of all pensions —

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must take some note of what the Chair is saying. If he looks at the Estimate which he is discussing, he will see that it deals with grants to the Seychelles, St. Vincent and Mauritius.

Mr. Tilney: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am anxious that the mistake made in the past is not made again in the case of Mauritius. This is a matter of bookkeeping. I am not asking for more money. I ask that it should be spent more wisely.

2.53 a.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mr. Reg Prentice): The hon. Gentleman has raised an important subject, and he


has done so with reference to the problems of Mauritius in the Supplementary Estimates. I hope that I shall be allowed to follow him in some of the wider aspects of his argument, in the sense that the way in which we have been dealing with the problems has been similar in relation to a number of territories in the past and perhaps will be similar in the future. The problems raised are of a general nature, although they are illustrated by the example concerned. Certainly I was hoping to be allowed to follow his general argument, which is related to what we did in the case of Mauritius and possibly will be related to other cases in the future.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised this subject. He has raised it in the House on many previous occasions and has shown a close interest in it over the years. He is Vice-President of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association, and he knows a great deal about the subject.
It is not a new problem. It has been raised many times, and the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised when I say that I do not propose to give him a new answer. The position of successive Governments on this has been the same.
Perhaps I might sum it up in this way. Before a territory becomes independent, the payment of pensions is recognised as being the responsibility of the overseas Government.
Entitlement to pension is part of the domestic legislation of the territory, an entitlement which applies both to indigenous public servants and to ex-patriate public servants. At independence the new government assumes the liabilities and the assets of the former government and this includes the responsibility to pay pensions to retired public servants. This will be the case for Mauritius, as it has been in previous cases.
As the hon. Member has recognised, at the time of independence it has been, and will continue to be, the practice to conclude a Public Officer's Agreement which safeguards the entitlement to pension of all the overseas officers and safeguards them against various risks-for example, against the risk of devaluation of the local currency. The hon. Member referred to devaluation of the £ sterling.

which is a different problem. But usually there has been a specific safeguard against devaluation of the local currency.

Mr. Tilney: Not in the case of the Ceylon widows.

Mr. Prentice: I said "usually". I am trying to spell out the general rules which apply in these cases.
Following independence there will often be financial aid from this country to the country concerned. In assessing this financial aid account is taken of a whole range of factors, including the liability of that Government to pay the pensions to which we have referred. But this would only be one of a whole range of factors that govern whether a country is to get aid and, if so, how much it is to be.
If a country is to get budgetary aid, as some countries do—Malawi is an example, and there are other examples in Africa—widows pensions become a matter of arithmetic in arriving at it. In the generality of cases, we cannot quantify it in that way. I am merely saying that the fact they are responsible for these pensions is one of their liabilities which helps us to assess the economic position of the country concerned. Whether it gets aid, and how much, depends on this and how much we can afford as well as a number of other factors.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the uncertainty for the future in the minds of pensioners as one of his five consequences. I suggest that this is probably not the state of mind of a great many of them, and need not be, for two basic reasons. One is that the Governments to whom we have handed over independence over the years have met their obligations in almost all cases. There are very few exceptions. Secondly, the British Government have recognised an obligation to step in if there is a default.
Here I would refer the hon. Gentleman to an exchange of letters that took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) when he was Secretary for Technical Cooperation and the President of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association. The right hon. Gentleman said,
… if for any reasons it should so happen in relation to the payment of a pension that


a pensioner found himself in financial difficulties Her Majesty's Government would feel obliged to take appropriate remedial action.
That does not amount to a formal commitment to pay loan advances if there has been a default, but it has been understood since by the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association and by the British Government that this would in effect happen if there were a default.
In the case of Zanzibar, after the revolution there was a default for a time and the British Government made loan advances to the pensioners until the new Government of Tanzania took over the responsibility.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the example of pensioners from the Eastern Region of Nigeria. There again, there were ban advances from the United Kingdom Government to the pensioners concerned pending the moment when the Federal Government of Nigeria took over responsibility, which they have now done.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the request which has been received from the Government of Tanzania that we should take over their liability for pensions. We are considering this, and we are prepared to discuss it with them. In the meantime, the essential point is that they are continuing to meet their obligations in full, and there is no suggestion that they will not do so. From the pensioner's point of view, I do not think that there is any cause for the feeling of insecurity to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
There is, of course, a certain uneveness in the way certain things work out, but these are not necessarily to everybody's disadvantage. The hon. Gentleman referred to the effect of devaluing the £ sterling. This means that some pensioners drawing their pensions in Britain and getting them from a Government which did not devalue are now drawing an enhanced pension, perhaps to the extent of one-sixth of the original, perhaps to a lesser extent. The hon. Gentleman mentioned various countries and the way they treat this. In a sense this has been a bonus for some pensioners, though not for others. Similar considerations apply to the tax position.
The hon. Gentleman took examples of people drawing pensions overseas who had been treated far worse than average, but there are many people who draw

pensions overseas deliberately. Among the considerations which they have in mind is that they will pay less tax than they would if they were drawing their pensions in the United Kingdom. I think that in these various uneven aspects of the matter there are many pensioners who benefit, and recognise that they do, from these anomalies. If we were to adopt the proposals put forward by the hon. Gentleman, there would be many overseas pensioners who would not welcome the levelling out of conditions.
My more serious objection to the hon. Gentleman's proposals is one with which he is familiar. What he is proposing for the future in relation to Zanzibar, and for all previous cases, is that we should take over the payments of pensions, and at the same time reduce our aid budget to do this. This would have serious consequences, in that it would distort the aid programme for reasons which the hon. Gentleman and I would not want to take into account when allocating our aid. It would mean that some countries which at the moment do not receive aid from us would be relieved of the liability to pay pensions and therefore, in a sense, would be receiving financial assistance at the expense of other countries which needed it more. To pay the pensions of expublic servants in relation to certain countries, we might find ourselves having to refuse aid which helps to maintain public servants in other poorer countries.

Mr. Tilney: Surely it would be possible to deal only with those countries which were aided by us, and leave the others on one side?

Mr. Prentice: That would be possible, but I suggest that we would be getting the worst of both worlds, because there would still be two ways in which people would be getting their pensions, some from us, and some from the overseas government concerned, and there would still be the anomalies to which the hon. Gentleman referred in relation to tax and devaluation. We should also partially distort the aid to those countries from which we took over the liability.
I have studied the matter with great care. I have come to the same conclusion as was arrived at by my predecessors in both Governments. I


realise that there are difficulties, but on balance I think that the way we are doing this is the right one, and therefore I cannot go any way to meet the hon. Gentleman's proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — CLAPHAM TRANSPORT MUSEUM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]

3.5 a.m.

Mr. John Fraser: I will make my remarks as short as possible, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mrs. McKay) wishes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I do not think anyone will quarrel with the conclusion contained in Cmnd. 3439 on Railways that the Railways Board should cease to bear the cost of running the Clapham Transport Museum and that responsibility for it should pass to the Department of Education and Science. What comes as a bombshell is the recommendation that this fine and newly-established centre should be put under the hammer, that its London Transport exhibits—its trams, buses and other museum pieces—should be dispersed to no particular place, where it would be difficult for enthusiasts to gain access.
I was even more shocked to find, when my right hon. Friend was asked about consultations with the Greater London Council and the London boroughs, to whom the proposal is a matter of concern, that she did not think that any useful purpose would be served by a discussion with the interested authorities. I urge my right hon. Friend to reverse the decision, which appears to be pronounced in the White Paper, to remove the museum from London and to disperse an irreplaceable collection of what I am assured is the finest and largest collection of public transport relics not only in this country but in the world. There are sound reasons for my hon. Friend's reversing this decision.
First, the statistics about support of the museum are misleading. The museum has been open only for a short time. It was opened in its present form on 29th May, 1963, a small section having been opened in 1961. Attendance figures have risen steadily since its opening, and there is strong evidence to suggest that support for the Museum will increase in the future. In 1967 attendance figures had risen to 164,000, and we find that in 1966 admission charges totalled £16,109 as compared with £17,255 in 1967.
In 1966 the total revenue of the museum—including sales of literature, admission charges, refreshments, and so on—amounted to £23,549. By 1967 this figure had risen to £33,537—a rise of 40 per cent. in a year. On open days attendances reached almost 7,000, bringing for one open day admission figures of £1,000 to £1,500. Any judgment of the support and financial income of the museum must take account of the rising support for it, as well as its rising income.
It has been open for only five years and has met with great success. It commends itself to about two million transport enthusiasts throughout the country, not all of whom are schoolboys, and it has become more and more closely associated with schools and institutions in the neighbourhood and with scholarships and education. The factor of increasing support alone make a nonsense of the projected savings mentioned in the White Paper.
The catchment area of the museum is much greater than is normally the case. The financial information may be wrongly interpreted. The costs of the museum include payment of salaried staff, but this staff does not serve just the museum; it also serves the museums at Swindon and York, together with the whole of the historical aspects of the British Railways Board. To assess the costs it is necessary to remember that some of the money must be allocated in respect of the work done by the salaried staff for other institutions and for the Board in general.
On the financial side, the attendance and security staff is supplied by the London Transport Executive, and it is no reflection on the attendance and security men that they are mainly unfit London Transport employees who are


paid bonus payments for their attendance at the museum—payments similar to those made for men who continue to drive buses for London Transport. If the museum is taken over by the Department of Education and Science, there will be considerable saving by employing regular museum staff who would not he subject to the same sort of bonuses paid to, for example, a disabled bus driver employed in the museum.
The total deficit last year was some-Thing over £47,000. But if one takes from that savings on staffing costs to the Department of Education and Science of £10,000 a year, savings in costs attributable to other work of £5,000, and projections of future income of a further £10,000, the deficit is likely to go down ID about £20,000. This amounts to a figure of less than a halfpenny per person per year in the Greater London area, or an infinitesimal part of a penny rate in London as a whole. It is surely worth while to consult with the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs and other interested bodies with a view to giving them the choice of retaining this valuable asset in London.
Those are the financial reasons, but we cannot talk of art, science and design in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. The museum is a valuable social asset which adds variety and interest to suburban London. It is a focus for historical and artistic and scientific teaching in South London schools and the whole of South London. It helps the study of British social history, enables communications inventions to come alive, and gives public transport a show place which heightens interest in our public transport system and endows it with that romanticism and fascination with which it is richly endowed.
It is quite a centre for art. Posters, paintings, sings and relics provide a living guide to industrial design and reflect a way of life of the nation. Whether the exhibit be the fastest locomotive on earth—the Mallard—or whether it be the carriages which Huskisson first set off in 1834, or pictures of some steel monsters steaming through the night with mail or passengers, or a London tram, it portrays many of the aspects of everyday life and a memory of the craftmanship and invention of our people over the years. It would be a great pity if this museum

should die so soon after its birth, and I hope the Minister will not sacrifice what is a unique collection in the world.

3.13 a.m.

Mrs. Margaret McKay: I think it is very sad that in this period when heart transplants are being utilised for miraculously saving human life, there should now be a bureaucratic proposal to cut out the heart of the living community of Clapham.
I should like to say something about the effect on Clapham if the museum is closed. Clapham is a divided constituency. It has no Town Hall, no Civic centre and no central cultural, educational or social institution. Our only central feature is this Transport Museum which has been conceded to be a centre of historic, cultural, and educational value.
The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) about attendances do not tell all the story in relation to the museum. The parties of schoolchildren who attend do not simply move in and out. They really stay, and I have brought with me for the Minister to see the really long set of papers the children have to study before they visit the museum and on which they write essays afterwards.
My hon. Friend has stated how important this is as an art centre and I want to emphasise that art students from all over London go to work in the museum. If the museum was closed it would be a deprivation to art students. Furthermore, the museum is an invisible export. There are foreign visitors from all over the world who visit the museum and maintain contact with the museum. We feel that it is important to our export drive to maintain the museum.
Returning to the effect of the closure of the museum on Clapham itself, with rising 200,000 visitors a year to the museum, it will be a very serious loss to our community, to our shopkeepers and our restaurants, if the museum is closed, and we shall feel it very severely.
I understand from correspondence with the Ministry of Transport that there are two main objections to the preservation of the museum, but they do not stand up. The first is that it is difficult to move railway trains into and out of the museum. But it is not normal to move


trains in and out every day of the week. I appreciate that it is not policy to have live museums and move exhibits from museum to museum, but railway trains are another matter. In any case, this is not a railway museum but a general transport museum and road transport figures large. These exhibits are easily moved indeed, I rode to Brighton recently in an old bus with another Member and the Mayor and Corporation, and thousands of Clapham people turned out to cheer their exhibit because the museum is so popular.
The other objection is that this assists the policy of dispersal of services from London to the North, but York already has a museum, and I can see no social gain in robbing London and its eight million people and visitors from all over the country to enlarge an existing museum at York. Being a Lancastrian, I might have felt a little softer towards this if the suggested site had been Blackpool. But I do not want the museum moved.
This is not an attraction like a Bingo hall which can be closed and put up elsewhere without social loss, but an historic, cultural and educational centre, whose removal would be a genuine loss to Clapham. I appreciate that this could he charged for some time on the Department of Education and Science and I sympathise, particularly because the Department is allowed only £5 million a year to support museums, but I think that the retention of our museum would be an issue on which to fight for more finance of this kind. It proves that this sum leaves no leeway for such contingencies as the preservation of a museum suddenly handed from one Department to another.
In the interests of Clapham, its residents and its shopkeepers, and because of the affection which all of us who have lived in Clapham for so long have for the Museum, we appeal for the preservation of the Clapham Transport Museum.

3.23 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Jennie Lee): My hon. Friends the Members for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and Clapham (Mrs. McKay) have put an

eloquent case for the preservation of the Clapham Transport Museum. It has been there for only a little more than five years. Its attendances have been growing and it is a centre of local interest and pride. My hon. Friends' case would be unanswerable if the only consideration were the welfare of Clapham, and I am sure that if, in the future, this attractive museum has to be closed, there will be a good deal of natural sadness and resentment. One small comfort which I can give is that there is not the least likelihood of the museum being closed in the immediate future.
However, the problem as presented to the Government is not just a Clapham or a local problem but a national one. There is growing interest in industrial archaeology. We now have a vast number of industrial relics and, quite properly, in looking at the rail and road transport of our fathers and grandfathers, we should make proper provision for its care, both for the future and in our own interests.
Because of these considerations, a distinguished team was established to look into the whole future of industrial archaeology and the preservation of transport objects. This team unanimously agreed that, although for some years the Clapham Transport Museum would no doubt continue, it could hold out no hope for it in the long-term. I must take into account the fact that the recommendations of this distinguished team have been supported by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, the Railways Board, the present Curator of the Clapham Museum and the Director of the Science Museum. Unfortunately for my hon. Friends who represent Clapham, the entire weight of expert opinion is against the long-term preservation of Clapham as a centre in this respect.
One of the reasons given by the team is that there is no direct access to a railhead, with the result that the acquisition of new exhibits and the removal of unwanted ones is expensive. A year or two ago it cost £1,700 to get one exhibit, a locomotive, into the Clapham Museum. In addition to the expense and difficulty of exhibits going to and from the museum, the internal movement of locomotives and other exhibits is expensive and difficult, due to the internal setup of the museum.
There is another consideration. Outside London there is growing resentment that when we are planning not just local museums but great national ones, so much of our most valued national furniture is concentrated in or around London. It is Government policy not only to encourage regional development but to meet this mood throughout the country—for obvious historical reasons London has the National Gallery, the British Museum, the Tate and so many fabulous museums—and to say that if we are making long-term plans for another national museum, we should carefully consider if there is not a situation outside London whose claims would he stronger than any London claim.
The recommendation was that the new museum should be provided at York. The fact that York is a great centre outside London was one consideration but, it addition, the team considered that the new museum should be run as a branch of the Science Museum, that the Science Museum should select from the existing collections at Clapham and York the objects which it thought worth preserving, and that the new museum should be maintained by the Ministry of Public Building and Works. This would be the first branch of an English national institution to be established outside London, arid it is considered that York, which is closely connected with early railway history and which is a great tourist centre, would be a suitable place.
There is also the consideration that the new museum would provide a living and continuously developing display. It would have the most highly skilled maintenance of important objects—although obviously, if the choice had fallen to Clapham, there would be expert assistance from the Science Museum. But the advantage of York is that exhibits could be brought right to the museum.
As I say, the point of comfort that I can give to my hon. Friends is that we have two considerations, the short-term and the long-term. In the short-term I hope that Clapham Museum will continue and flourish. I hope it will continue to attract more visitors and be a source of pride and pleasure locally.
Everything that my hon. Friends have said tonight will be carefully recorded and carefully considered. This is not

something about which we have to come to a hasty or ill-considered decision, but we have to look at the vast expense involved. In the two years, 1965–66 and 1966–67, there was a loss of £133,000 on the Clapham Museum. I take the point made by my hon. Friends that in time this loss will probably be reduced, but if there is to be national expenditure as distinct from local museums maintained from local resources—and I am sure there will be a great proliferation of these in future—all expert opinion is on the side of having an outpost of the Science Museum situated in York. Some other place may be considered, but York is at present the centre.
Museums of the future must not be static. It must be possible, whether we are dealing with locomotives, paintings, or sculpture, for us to see that as good quality goes outside London as there is inside and to make provision for exchanges. Alas, Clapham is not the favourite because it is not convenient to the railway. It is not the favourite because families in Clapham have the possibility of going to the Science Museum.
Attendance at the Science Museum in 1967 was almost 2 million. Attendance at Clapham Museum was 156,000. I am glad that all museum attendances are going up, but when we are looking at the long-term possibilities it would be wrong for me to hold out hope that there can be a reversal of the present trend of thought, which is that York should be the great outpost of the Science Museum. Nevertheless, I hope that my hon. Friends will recognise that this decision has not been come to lightly. We do not want to take away anything from Clapham which can be avoided, but the final outcome must be a national decision made in broad national terms.
I hope that our friends in Clapham realise that children and families growing up in and around London have through the Science Museum and all our other museums very much greater opportunities than the majority of families living in more distant parts of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Three o'clock a.m.